Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/questionatissueiOOwell_0 


THE  QUESTION  AT  ISSUE  IN  THE  ANDOVER  CASE. 


ARGUMENTS 


Rev.  Drs.  JOSHUA  W.  WELLMAN  and  ORPHEUS  T. 


COMPLAINANTS  IN  THE  ANDOVER  CASE.  ( 


Prepared  for  the  Hearing  before  the  Board  of  Visitors, 
September  i,  1892. 


PRE!  S  >Kn'.D    BUT    NOT  READ. 


PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST. 


BOSTON : 
PRESS  OF  SAMUEL  USHER, 
171  Devonshire  Street. 
I893- 


Copyright,  1893,  BY  Samuel  Usher. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Letters    5 

Amended  Complaint   7 

Preface    9 

t 

Arguments  of  Rev.  O.  T.  Lanphear,  d.d. 

Argument  Maintaining  the  Thirteenth  Charge  of  the 
Amended  Complaint  13 

Argument  Maintaining  the  Twelfth  Charge  of  the 
Amended  Complaint  51 

Arguments  of  Eev.  J.  W.  Wellman,  d.d. 

Introduction   85 

I.  The  Particular  Complaints   90 

II.  First  Particular  Complaint   93 

III.  Second  Particular  Complaint  109 

IV.  Third  Particular  Complaint  140 

V.   Fifth  Particular  Complaint  188 

VI.   Sixth  Particular  Complaint  197 

VII.   Fallacious  Arguments  in  the  Replies  of  the  De- 
fence  249 

VIII.   Conclusion  281 


Boston,  May  8,  1893. 


Eev.  Drs.  Wellman  and  Lanphear. 

Gentlemen,—  The  undersigned,  believing  that  the  Christian  public  wish 
to  know  all  the  facts  of  the  now  celebrated  Andover  Case,  the  statement 
of  which  you  laboriously  prepared,  and  the  presentation  of  which  was 
prevented  by  the  decision  of  the  Visitors ;  and  believing  that  the  public 
mind  needs  enlightenment  on  a  question  so  important  to  Christian  morals 
and  Christian  truth,  and  having  heard  that  the  argument  of  the  Trustees 
prepared  by  Rev.  Dr.  D.  T.  Fiske  has  been  read  by  him  to  the  Essex 
[North]  Association,  would  request  you  to  prepare  a  copy  of  your  argu- 
ments for  publication. 

[Signed}  Cyrus  Hamlin,  Samuel  C.  Bartlett, 


Daniel  March, 
Geo.  F.  Magoun, 
Joseph  Cook, 

E.  B.  Webb, 

F.  A.  Noble, 
Edward  P.  Goodwin, 
Arthur  Little 
Franklin  Fairbanks, 
Daniel  L.  Furber, 
Thomas  Laurie, 
Michael  Burnham, 
D.  O.  Mears, 
Samuel  H.  Virgin, 
Simeon  Gilbert, 

J.  L.  Withrow, 
W.  E.  Park, 
Thomas  Weston, 


John  R.  Thurston, 


E.  N.  Packard, 
J.  E.  Rankin, 


Lewis  A.  Hyde, 
L.  S.  Rowland, 


G.  S.  F.  Savage, 
John  M.  Greene, 


Philip  W.  Moen, 
S.  L.  Blake, 


J.  D.  Kingsbury, 
Ezra  A.  Slack, 
H.  Fairbanks, 


G.  R.  W.  Scott, 
P.  B.  Davis, 


Wolcott  Calkins, 
Ebenezer  Cutler, 
George  R.  Leavitt, 


and  others. 


5 


Boston,  May  16,  1893. 

Rev.  Drs.  Hamlin,  March,  and  others. 

Gentlemen,  —  The  undersigned  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  decline  your 
request  to  prepare  for  publication  a  copy  of  their  arguments  which  were 
ready,  but  were  not  presented  before  the  Board  of  Visitors  in  the 
Andover  Case  at  the  Hearing,  September  1,  1892.  Acting  from  the  first 
under  the  conviction  that  the  claim  of  truth  and  duty  is  paramount  to 
every  other  consideration,  they  complied  with  the  request  of  Alumni, 
and  other  friends  of  the  Seminary,  in  undertaking  to  serve  as  complain- 
ants, and  now  as  at  first,  in  compliance  with  your  request,  a  copy  of 
their  arguments  is  at  your  disposal. 

JOSHUA  W.  WELLMAN. 
ORI'HEUS  T.  LANI'HEAR. 


6 


In  the  Matter  of  the  Complaint  against  EGBERT  C.  SMYTH 
and  others,  Professors  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Andover. 

AMENDED  COMPLAINT. 

To  the  Reverend  and  Honorable  the  Board  of  Visitors  of  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Andover :  — 
Pursuant  to  a  decree  of  your  Honorable  Board,  passed  October  25, 
a.d.  1886,  the  undersigned  respectfully  ask  leave  to  file  the  following 
Amended  Complaint  against  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  Brown  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History  in  said  Seminary,  to  wit : 

First,  we  charge  that  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth  holds  beliefs,  has 
taught  doctrines  and  theories,  and  has  done  other  things  as  hereinafter 
enumerated,  which  are  not  in  harmony  with,  but  antagonistic  to,  the 
Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  and  the  "  true  intention''  of 
its  Founders,  as  expressed  in  those  statutes. 

ii. 

Secondly,  we  charge  that  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  contrary  to  the 
requirements  of  Articles  XI.  (eleven)  and  XII.  (twelve)  of  the  Consti- 
tution, as  modified  by  Article  1.  (one)  of  the  Additional  Statutes,  is  not 
a  man  41  of  sound  and  Orthodox  principles  in  Divinity  according  to" 
"  the  fundamental  and  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ 
as  summarily  expressed  in  the  Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, .  .  .  and  as  more  particularly  expressed  in  the  following  Creed," 
to  wit,  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary;  but  that  on  the  other  hand,  he 
believes  and  teaches  in  several  particulars,  hereinafter  enumerated,  what 
is  antagonistic  to  the  Seminary  Creed,  and,  therefore,  in  violation  of  the 
Statutory  requirements  of  the  Founders. 

in. 

Thirdly,  we  charge  that  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  in  breach  of  the 
requirement  of  Article  II.  (two)  of  the  Associate  Foundation,  upon 
which  he  is  placed,  is  not  an  "  Orthodox  and  Consistent  Calvinist,"  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  believes  and  teaches,  in  several  particulars,  herein- 
after enumerated,  what  is  opposed  to  the  Seminary  Creed. 

IV. 

Fourthly,  we  charge  that  the  several  particulars  of  the  "  heterodoxy  " 
of  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  and  of  his  opposition  to  the  Creed  of  the 
Seminary,  and  to  the  "  true  intention  "  of  the  Founders  as  expressed 
in  their  Statutes,  are  as  follows,  to  wit :  he  holds,  "  maintains  and 
inculcates  " :  — 

1.  That  the  Bible  is  not  "  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice," 
but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  in  some  of  its  religious  teachings. 
7 


8 


Amended  Complaint. 


2.  That  Christ  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation  was  a  finite  being,  limited 
in  all  his  attributes,  capacities  and  attainments ;  in  other  words,  was  not 
"  GOD  AND  MAN." 

3.  That  no  man  has  power  or  capacity  to  repent  without  knowledge  of 
God  in  Christ. 

4.  That  mankind,  save  as  they  have  received  a  knowledge  of  "the 
historic  Christ,"  are  not  sinners,  or,  if  they  are,  not  of  such  sinfulness 
as  to  be  in  danger  of  being  lost. 

5.  That  no  man  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowledge  of  Christ. 

6.  That  the  atonement  of  Christ  consists  essentially  and  chiefly  in  his 
becoming  identified  with  the  human  race  through  his  incarnation,  in 
order  that,  by  his  union  with  men,  he  might  endow  them  with  the  power 
to  repent,  and  thus  impart  to  them  an  augmented  value  in  the  view  of 
God,  and  so  render  God  propitious  towards  them. 

7.  That  the  Trinity  is  modal,  or  monarchian,  and  not  a  Trinity  of 
Persons. 

8.  That  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  chiefly  confined  to  the  sphere 
of  historic  Christianity. 

9.  That  without  the  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ,  men  do  not  deserve 
the  punishment  of  the  law,  and  that  therefore  their  salvation  is  not 
"  wholly  of  grace." 

10.  That  faith  ought  to  be  scientific  and  rational  rather  than 
scriptural. 

11.  That  there  is,  and  will  be,  probation  after  death  for  all  men  who 
do  not  decisively  reject  Christ  during  the  earthly  life;  and  that  this 
should  be  emphasized,  made  influential,  and  even  central  in  systematic 
theology. 

12.  That  Christian  missions  are  not  to  be  supported  and  conducted  on 
the  ground  that  men  who  know  not  Christ  are  in  danger  of  perishing 
forever,  and  must  perish  forever,  unless  saved  in  this  life. 

13.  That  a  system  of  physical  and  metaphysical  philosophy  is  true 
which  by  fair  inference  neutralizes  the  Christian  doctrine  as  taught  in 
the  Creed  of  the  Seminary. 

14.  That  there  is  a  "  New  Theology  better  than  the  Old,"  which,  we 
apprehend,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  Creed,  but  fatally  opposed  to  the 
same. 

15.  That  the  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth  holds  and  teaches  many  things 
which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  that  "  Orthodox  and  consistent  Cal- 
vinism," which  the  Statutes  require  of  him,  and  to  which  he  stands  pub- 
licly committed;  and  that  in  repeated  instances  said  Egbert  C.  Smyth 
has  broken  solemn  promises  made  when  he  subscribed  the  Creed. 

J.  W.  WELLMAS, 
H.  M.  DEXTER, 
O.  T.  LANPHEAR, 
J.  J.  BLAISDELL, 

By  Asa  French, 

Their  Attorney. 

Boston,  November  8,  1886. 


PREFACE. 


No  apology  is  required  of  the  complainants  for  publishing  their  argu- 
ments, which  were  not  read  before  the  Board  of  Visitors  because  of  the 
decision  to  dismiss  the  Amended  Complaint  without  further  hearing. 

Admitting  the  wisdom  of  the  Board  in  dismissing  the  Complaint,  in 
order  to  the  performance  of  its  duty  in  another  way :  the  question  at 
issue  in  the  Andover  Case  is  so  momentous,  the  public  interest  in  it  so 
important,  and  the  requirements  of  full  and  free  discussion  in  the  service 
of  truth  so  imperative,  as  to  require  the  complainants  to  give  their  argu- 
ments to  the  public  in  this  manner,  especially,  when  asked  to  do  so  by  so 
many  representatives  of  interested  Alumni,  together  with  others,  and 
also  since  the  public  expectation  was  not  to  be  satisfied  by  learning  their 
views  in  any  other  way. 

If  any  precedent  were  needed,  in  addition  to  the  action  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Board  of  Trustees  in  reading  his  argument  in  defence  of 
the  professors  prepared  for  the  hearing  before  the  Board  of  Visitors, 
at  a  meeting  of  the  ministerial  association  of  which  he  is  a  member, 
shortly  after  the  dismissal  of  the  Complaint,  reference  might  be  made 
to  the  fact  that  The  Andover  Review,  with  other  representatives  of  the 
public  press,  has  been  diligent  in  the  defence  of  the  professors,  claiming 
without  warrant  that  the  dismissal  of  the  Complaint  was  tantamount  to 
their  justification,  and  also  publishing  a  series  of  essays  on  the  Divinity 
of  Christ,  which,  however  they  may  have  been  intended  in  defence  of 
the  professors,  must  be  taken  as  still  further  evidence  of  their  departure 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  as  taught  in  the  creed  of  the 
Seminary.  Under  those  circumstances  no  valid  reason  could  be  given 
in  the  name  of  freedom  of  thought,  and  its  public  expression,  for  with- 
holding from  the  public  the  arguments  of  the  complainants. 

These  arguments  are  published  in  form  and  substance  as  they  were 
prepared  for  reading  before  the  Board  of  Visitors,  except  that  in  some 
instances  reference  is  made  to  certain  publications  since  that  date  and  to 
certain  recent  events  in  illustration  of  the  positions  already  taken.  To 
correct  certain  misapprehensions  respecting  the  standing  of  the  com- 
plainants it  may  be  proper  to  repeat  here  in  brief  what  has  been 
explicitly,  and  perhaps  sufficiently,  declared  before :  that,  in  the  first 
instance,  they  appeared  before  the  Visitors  simply  as  "  memorialists,"  and 
acting  according  to  what  they  believed  to  be  the  deliverance  of  prede- 
cessors of  the  Visitors  in  office;  that,  instead  of  acting  as  "memorial- 
ists," they  consented  to  act  as  complainants  under  the  permission  and 


10 


Preface. 


authority  of  the  Visitors,  when  assured  that  they  could  not  be  heard  in 
any  other  capacity ;  and  that  they  were  to  serve  in  this  capacity  only 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  Visitors  to  receive  their  service. 

It  is  also  proper  to  say  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  complainants,  Pro- 
fessor Egbert  C.  Smyth,  d.d.,  is  not  regarded  in  any  sense  more  amenable 
to  the  charges  of  the  Complaint  than  his  professorial  associate  editors 
of  the  book  entitled  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy.''  That  they  have  to  speak 
of  him  as  the  alone  Respondent  is  owing  to  circumstances  not  within 
their  control.  As  the  Complaint  was  first  formulated,  it  was  made 
against  all  the  associate  editors  jointly,  but  objection  being  made  on  the 
plea  that  it  would  be  more  according  to  equity  to  put  but  one  of  the 
professors  on  trial  at  a  time,  the  Complaint  was  changed  so  that  charges 
were  formulated  against  Professor  Smyth  alone.  But  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  arguments  of  both  the  Defendant  and  of  the  complainants,  the 
motion  was  made  by  counsel  of  the  Defendant  to  include  with  him  in 
this  hearing  his  associate  editors  on  their  acceptance  of  Professor 
Smyth's  defence  as  their  own,  with  leave  to  make  such  further  state- 
ments as  each  for  himself  might  desire.  This  was  agreed  to  by  counsel 
of  the  complainants  and  accepted  by  the  Visitors.  But  it  transpired 
that  as  one  of  the  Visitors  —  Dr.  W.  T.  Eustis  —  was  not  present  when 
the  other  professors  made  these  further  statements,  it  did  not  appear  to 
liim  that  he  could  consistently  and  legally  act  with  the  other  Visitors  in 
coming  to  a  decision  which  should  include  the  professors  whom  he  had 
not  heard.  Consequently  the  Visitors  decreed  to  remove  only  Professor 
Smyth  from  office,  according  to  the  plea  for  equity  made  before  the 
hearing  of  the  arguments.  This  decree  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  having 
been  set  aside  by  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  ground  that  the  Trustees 
were  not  heard  in  the  case,  as  they  desired,  "  the  Amended  Complaint" 
against  Egbert  C.  Smyth  was  declared  to  be  "  still  pending,"  on  which 
a  hearing  was  ordered  by  the  Board  of  Visitors  to  be  had  September  1, 
1S92,  at  which  the  complainants  were  cited  to  be  present,  with  others, 
"  to  be  heard  thereon."  In  obedience  to  this  citation  the  complainants 
appeared  prepared  to  read  the  arguments  contained  in  this  pamphlet, 
which,  however,  they  did  not  read  because  the  Amended  Complaint  was 
dismissed,  as  already  stated. 

These  arguments,  instead  of  following  the  numerical  order  of  the 
several  specifications,  are  arranged  according  to  what  is  conceived  to  be 
the  order  of  thought  —  the  two  first  in  this  order  written  by  O.  T. 
Lanphear,  and  the  arguments  following  written  by  J.  \V.  Wellman. 


JOSHUA  W.  WELLMAN. 
ORPHEUS  T.  LANPHEAR. 


ARGUMENTS 

OF 

REV.  O.  T.  LANPHEAR,  D.D. 


11 


ARGUMENT 

Maintaining  the  Thirteenth  Charge  of  the 
Amended  Complaint. 


To  the  Reverend  and  Honorable,  the  Board  of  Visitors  in  the 

Theological  Seminary  at  Andover. 
Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  —  I  am  to  argue  before  you 
the  thirteenth  charge  of  the  Amended  Complaint,  which  is  that  the 
Respondent, Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth, d.d.,  "holds,  maintains, 
and  inculcates  that  a  system  of  physical  and  metaphysical  phi- 
losophy is  true  which  by  fair  inference  neutralizes  the  Christian 
doctrine  as  taught  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary." 

While  there  may  be,  in  some  respects,  a  variety  of  opinions 
attached  to  "  New  Theology,"  whether  as  advocated  in  the  vol- 
ume styled  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  or  elsewhere,  there  is  in  the 
philosophy  underlying  them  a  common  interest.  This  philosophy 
is  pantheistic,  whether  as  pertaining  to  the  domain  of  physical  or 
metaphysical  inquiry. 

In  England,  the  Rev.  J.  B.  Heard,  arguing  for  the  New  Theol- 
ogy, says  in  respect  to  the  being  of  God  that  "unless  we  can 
make  an  approach  to  what  for  want  of  a  better  term  we  must  call 
Christian  Pantheism,  our  theology  on  the  most  fundamental  ques- 
tion of  all  will  strike  a  note  to  which  modern  science  will  have  no 
response";  and  lacking  this  response,  "theology  must,"  in  his 
estimation,  "  fossilize."  That  the  pantheism  he  has  in  mind  has 
no  Christian  element  appears  when  he  says  that  "  what  in  Spinoza 
was  an  evil  dream  of  science  is  now  a  sober  reality  "  ;  since  Spinoza 
held  that  "  all  things  are  but  modes  of  God's  infinite  attributes."1 

The  Rev.  J.  R.  Illing worth,  in  his  essay  on  the  "  Incarnation  in 
Relation  to  Development,"  in  the  volume  entitled  "  Lux  Mundi," 
argues  for  the  "  higher  pantheism,"  which,  he  says,  "  is  so  com- 
mon at  the  present  day,"2  though  in  this  case  the  reason  for  pre- 

1  Old  and  New  Theology,  p.  58.   Morell's  Hist.  Mod.  Philos.  p.  127. 
«  Lux  Mundi,  p.  159. 


14  Argument  on  Thirteenth  Comjjlaint. 


suming  to  make  the  doctrine  less  offensive  by  calling  it  the  "higher 
pantheism  "  is  not  apparent. 

In  New  England,  the  author  of  "  The  Continuity  of  Christian 
Thought,"  while  declaring  that  Maurice  "  more  than  any  other 
modern  theologian  was  in  accord  with  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Hegel,"  and  admitting  that  "  it  is  common  to  hear  Schleier- 
macher,  Hegel,  and  others  spoken  of  as  pantheists,"  does  not 
call  them  pantheists  himself,  on  the  ground  that  "  the  term," 
as  he  thinks,  "  has  never  been  defined,"  and  what  "  its  future  des- 
tiny may  be  is  still  uncertain."  1 

The  New  Theology,  as  represented  in  the  volume  entitled  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy,"  has  the  elements  of  pantheistic  philosophy 
found  in  this  theology  as  represented  by  other  writers. 

It  is  this  pantheistic  philosophy  which  neutralizes  the  Christian 
doctrine  as  taught  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  this  pantheistic  philosophy  appears  in  the 
views  held  respecting  the  Divine  Immanence. 

In  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  page.  16,  there  is  the  following 
passage  :  — 

We  add  a  single  remark  upon  the  general  philosophical  conception 
of  God  and  his  relation  to  the  universe  which  underlies  these  essays. 
It  is  a  modification  of  a  prevailing  Latin  conception  of  the  divine  tran- 
scendence by  a  clearer  and  fuller  appreciation  [in  accordance  with  the 
highest  thought  of  the  Greek  Fathers]  of  the  divine  immanence.  Such 
a  doctrine  of  God,  we  believe,  is  more  and  more  approving  itself  in  the 
best  philosophy  of  our  time,  and  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation  commends 
it  to  the  acceptance  of  the  Christian  theologian. 

This  statement  is  important  since  it  furnishes  the  key  to  the 
situation  of  all  that  follows  in  the  discussion  of  the  different 
topics.  What,  then,  is  the  divine  immanence  according  to  the 
Greek  Fathers?  This  question  cannot  be  answered  without  some 
reference  to  Greek  philosophy,  with  which  the  theology  of  the 
Greek  Fathers  was  in  alliance.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that 
the  Greek  philosophers  had  no  idea  of  the  personality  of  God,  so 
that  they  defined  creation  as  an  emanation  from  God,  and  not  as 
a  creation  in  the  proper  sense.  According  to  Plato,  nothing  has 
ever  been  created.  All  that  is  is  eternal,  not  in  form,  but  in 
substance.    Something  material  has  always  existed,  which  would 

1  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  p.  427  sq. 


Argument  on  Tliirteenth  Complaint.  15 


be  lifeless  except  that  it  has  a  soul — an  unintelligent  force  by 
which  chaotic  agitation  is  produced.  God,  as  the  absolute  or  im- 
personal Being,  endowed  this  unintelligent  force  with  a  portion  of 
his  own  intelligence,  and  then  this  unintelligent  force  thus  endowed 
becomes  the  world-soul,  or  Logos,  which  pervades  the  visible  uni- 
verse and  constitutes  one  living  animated  whole,  and  is  individ- 
ualized in  human  souls.  The  soul  of  man,  then,  consists  of  the 
world-soul  as  an  unintelligent  force  of  matter,  and  that  portion 
of  God's  own  intelligence  —  or  Logos  —  with  which  he  has  en- 
dowed that  force.1  Thus  the  Logos  is  the  reason  of  God  manifest 
in  creation,  which  it  fosters  and  sustains. 

This  notion  of  the  Logos  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  the 
world  was  not  confined  to  the  doctrines  of  Plato  or  the  Greek 
philosophy,  for,  as  Milman  observes,  this  doctrine  was  held  "  from 
the  shores  of  the  Yellow  Sea  to  the  Ilissus  ;  it  was  the  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  the  Indian  religion  and  Indian  philosophy  :  it  was 
the  basis  of  Zoroastrianism,  it  was  pure  Platonism,  it  was  the  Pla- 
tonic Judaism  of  the  Alexandrian  School."2  Thus,  the  Logos  is 
not  a  person,  or  hypostasis  in  the  Being  of  God,  but  an  emana- 
tion from  him,  a  ray  of  light  shot  out  from  him,  as  a  ray  of  light 
shot  out  from  the  sun,  and  to  be  reabsorbed  in  him  as  a  ray  of 
light  may  be  conceived  as  being  reabsorbed  in  the  sun.  The 
world  exists,  then,  in  form,  by  an  evolution  of  God,  by  his  identity 
with  the  world  through  the  Logos,  so  that  really  there  is  no  vital 
distinction  between  God  and  the  world.  It  has  been  well  said, 
therefore,  that  "  the  whole  fabric  of  ancient  and  modern  panthe- 
ism rests  upon  the  petitio  principii,  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
has  the  same  legitimate  application  within  the  sphere  of  the  In- 
finite and  Eternal,  that  it  has  within  that  of  the  Finite  and  Tem- 
poral,—  a  postulate  which  annihilates  the  distinction  between  the 
two."3  But  in  the  annihilation  of  this  distinction,  God  and  the 
world  are  found  to  be  identical.  Man  is  a  God-man  by  the  iden- 
tity of  the  Logos  with  his  soul. 

Again,  Plato  made  ideas  eternal  and  immutable,  and  as  ideas 
were  all  included  in  the  Being  of  God,  and  as  ideas  constituted 
the  only  really  existing  beings,  then,  all  that  is  phenomenal  or  that 
affects  the  senses  being  mere  shadows  of  the  real,  it  follows  that 

1  Charles  Hodge's  Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  322.  Charles  Bigg's  Bampton  Lectures,  18S6, 
p.  15.       2  History  of  Christianity,  p.  45.      3  Shedd's  Hist.  Of  Christ.  Doct.  vol.  i,  p.  13. 


16 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


Plato's  system  in  its  essential  character  is  really  pantheistical. 
Thus  all  that  there  is  of  intelligence  in  the  world,  down  to  man, 
belongs,  in  Plato's  view,  to  the  divine  substance.1 

So  the  aim  of  Stoicism  "  was  to  bring  the  popular  religion, 
allegoric-ally  explained,  into  union  with  a  thoroughly  pantheistic 
view  of  the  world." 

Aristotle  held  that  human  souls  are  only  the  divine  reason  in 
individual  existence. 

The  Neoplatonists  held  that  the  affluence' of  God  is  emitted  as 
fire  emits  heat,  and  that  the  soul  of  man  is  a  mode  of  God's  exist- 
ence, a  portion  of  his  substance,  and  whose  destiny  is  absorption 
in  the  Infinite  Being. 

According  to  the  mysticism  of  the  Alexandrian  School,  the 
Logos,  or  reason  in  God,  is  reason  in  man,  so  that  in  the  pursuit 
of  truth  supreme  authority  should  be  ascribed  to ''God  within 
us,"  and  not  to  the  Scriptures. 

Origen  held  "  to  a  spiritually  conceived  theory  of  emanation." 
"God,  as  the  absolute  unity,  he  taught,  can  only  be  a  source  of 
unity.  So  far  as  all  existence  springs  from  him,  the  unity  of  his 
own  essence  must  reveal  itself  therein."  "  God  therefore  is  to  be 
originally  contemplated  as  the  fountain  of  a  world  of  spirits, 
allied  to  his  own  nature."2  As  Origen  held  to  the  preexistence  of 
the  human  spirit,  and  that  it  was  at  length  sent  into  this  world  on 
account  of  sin,  this  passage  shows  that  in  that  previous  state  the 
origin  of  the  human  spirit  was  an  emanation  from  the  divine 
essence,  and  so  in  quality  identical  with  the  divine. 

Professor  Allen  says  that  "  the  statement  of  Hegel  may  differ  in 
form  from  that  of  ancient  Greek  theology,  but  it  is  the  same 
thing  iu  essential  principle."3  But  according  to  Hegel,  "  Deity 
is  a  process  ever  going  on,  but  never  accomplished  ;  nay,  the 
divine  consciousness  is  absolutely  one  with  the  advancing  con- 
sciousness of  mankind."  "Apart  from,  and  out  of,  the  world, 
therefore,  there  is  no  God  ;  aud  so  also,  apart  from  the  universal 
consciousness  of  man,  there  is  no  divine  consciousness  or  person- 
ality."4 Such  is  the  Hegelian  pantheism.  Thus  as  the  Greek 
philosophy  in  its  relation  to  theology  shows  that  in  all  its  forms 

i  C.  Hodge's  Theol.  vol.  i,  p.  325,  and  on  pantheism  generally.  See  also  Dollinger's 
Gentile  aud  the  Jew.  !  Neander,  vol.  i,  p.  621.  3  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought, 
p.  431.      4  Morell's  Hist.  Mod.  Philos.  pp.  473-477. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Comjjlaint. 


17 


it  was  more  or  less  pantheistic,  and  as  the  Greek  Fathers  derived 
the  doctrine  of  the  divine  immanence  from  the  Greek  philosophy, 
it  must  be  regarded  as  involving  the  identity  of  the  human  with 
the  divine.  It  goes  to  support  this  view  that  the  opinion  of  those 
who  may  be  called  experts,  whether  accepting  or  rejecting  this 
view  of  the  divine  immanence,  agree  substantially  in  attributing  to 
it  this  doctrine  of  identity. 

Now,  this  pantheistic  philosophy  on  which  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  immanence  is  based  is  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tian theism  in  the  Andover  Creed  in  several  particulars  :  — 

And  in  the  first  place,  this  opposition  is  seen  in  respect  to  the 
Creation.  According  to  the  theology  of  the  Andover  Creed, 
the  world  was  created  out  of  nothing,  both  in  substance  and  form, 
and  therefore  the  Creation  had  a  beginning ;  while  according  to 
the  Greek  immanence  the  world  is  an  emanation  from  God,  and 
without  beginning,  matter  being  eternal,  while  creation  regarded 
as  an  emanation  applies  only  to  the  form  of  things.  Thus,  the 
Greek  immanence  lies  at  the  foundation  of  what  is  called  monistic 
pantheism,  that  is,  that  there  is  in  reality  but  one  Being  in  the 
universe,  and  that  Being  is  God.  But  as  opposed  to  this,  the 
theology  of  the  Andover  Creed  holds  that  God  created  the  world 
to  be  other  than  himself.  Thus  it  is  consistent  with  its  claim 
that  "  the  word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice," 
for  the  Bible  everywhere  recognizes  as  true  the  intuitive  con- 
victions of  men.  One  of  these  convictions  is  that  God  is  other 
than  the  world,  that  God  as  spirit  is  not  matter,  nor  is  matter  spirit. 
Thus  the  realistic  dualism  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  human 
convictions  underlies  also  all  the  revelations  of  the  Bible. 

Again,  the  Greek  immanence  is  opposed  to  the  divine  imma- 
nence of  Christian  theism  which  is  the  basis  of  the  Andover 
Creed.  In  Christian  theism  the  divine  immanence  is  equiv- 
alent to  the  divine  omnipresence.  As  Creation  had  a  beginning, 
before  the  Creation  God  filled  the  immensity  of  space  with  his 
presence.  In  the  Creation  God  did  not  displace  himself,  but 
remained  equal  to  himself,  everywhere  present  in  the  space  filled 
by  Creation  and  everywhere  pi'esent  in  space  not  filled  by 
Creation.  God's  omnipresence  or  immanence  is  his  presence 
everywhere  in  Creation,  while  his  transcendence  is  his  presence 


18  Argument  on  TJiirteenth  Complaint. 


everywhere  beyond  the  Creation.  In  this  doctrine  of  the  divine 
omnipresence,  or  immanence,  God  is  in  no  sense  identical  with 
the  created  universe,  nor  is  the  divine  in  any  sense  identical  with 
the  human.  This  doctrine  of  the  divine  omnipresence  may  be 
said  to  date  from  Augustine,  who,  though  receiving  his  scientific 
discipline  from  Platonism  as  well  as  Origen,  nevertheless  disen- 
tangled his  theology  from  Platonism  in  respect  to  the  being  of 
God.1  He  says  that  God  "  is  entire  in  heaven  alone,  and  entire 
in  earth  alone,  and  entire  in  both  heaven  and  earth,  and  compre- 
hended in  no  place,  but  everywhere  entire  in  himself."2 

Calvin  says  that  "  God  represents  his  residence  to  be  in  heaven  ; 
for  though,  as  he  is  incomprehensible,  he  fills  the  earth  also ;  yet 
seeing  that  our  minds,  from  their  dulness,  are  continually  dwelling 
on  the  earth,  in  order  to  shake  off  our  sloth  and  inactivity,  he 
properly  raises  us  above  the  world."3 

Charnock,  who  was  a  Calvinist,  says  that  "  God  is  most  simple  ; 
his  essence  therefore  is  not  mixed  with  anything.  God  is  not 
formally  one  with  the  world  or  with  any  creature  in  the  world  by 
his  presence  in  it,  nor  can  any  creature  in  the  world,  no,  not  the 
soul  of  man,  or  an  angel,  come  to  be  essentially  one  with  God, 
though  God  be  essentially  present  with  it.  He  fills  heaven  and 
earth ;  he  is  as  much  a  God  in  the  earth  beneath  as  in  heaven 
above,  entirely  in  all  places,  not  by  scraps  and  fragments  of  his 
essence."4 

Emmons  says,  "that  a  cause  can  operate  where  it  does  not 
exist,  is  utterly  inconceivable  ;  and,  therefore,  the  presence  of  the 
Creator,  must  be  coextensive  with  his  works."  It  is  no  less  a 
conclusion  of  reason  than  a  dictate  of  revelation  that  God  "  fills 
heaven  and  earth."5 

Thus  in  Christian  theism,  according  to  the  theology  of  the 
Andover  Creed,  the  divine  immanence  is  the  omnipresence  of  God 
in  the  world  in  such  a  manner  that  God  is  not  "  mixed,"  or  identi- 
fied with  the  world,  nor  is  there  any  identity  of  the  human 
with  the  divine. 

But  according  to  the  Greek  philosophy  as  taught  at  Andover, 
and  the  Greek  theology  shaped  by  that  philosophy,  the  divine 
immanence  is  the  omnipresence  of  God  in  such  a  way  that  God  is 

1  Neander,  vol.  ii,  p.  353.  2  Hodge,  vol.  i,  p.  384.  8  Inst,  i,  13.  *  Divine  Attri- 
butes,  p.  238.      0  Bib.  Sac.  vol.  vii,  p.  257. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


19 


identified  with  the  world,  and  so  as  to  establish  the  identity  of  the 
divine  with  the  human,  and  thus  "  neutralizes  the  Christian  doc- 
trine as  taught  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary." 

It  has  been  said  by  the  defenders  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
that  it  cannot  be  pantheistic  because  it  admits  of  the  divine  tran- 
scendence ;  but  the  answer  is  that  it  does  not  admit  of  the  divine 
transcendence  in  the  sense  that  attaches  to  the  transcendence  in 
Christian  theism.  According  to  the  latter,  the  quality  of  the 
being  of  God  is  the  same  whether  considered  in  respect  to  his 
omnipresence  in  the  world,  or  to  his  transcendence  beyond  the 
world.  But,  accordiug  to  the  Greek  immanence,  the  identity  of 
the  human  with  the  divine  gives  a  quality  to  the  being  of  God  in 
the  world  different  from  the  quality  of  the  being  of  God  in  his 
transcendence  beyond  the  world.  In  his  transcendence  the  being 
of  God  is  purely  divine,  but  in  his  immanence  the  being  of  God  is 
identified  with  the  human,  and  so  confounded  with  the  world. 
Thus  it  appears  that  the  transcendence  which  the  Greek  imma- 
nence can  consistently  admit  must  differ  in  kind  from  the  tran- 
scendence of  Christian  theism,  for  in  that  the  transcendence  and 
immanence  represent  the  being  of  God  as  the  same  in  quality. 
The  admission  of  a  transcendence,  therefore,  does  not,  as  some 
have  supposed,  go  to  prove  that  a  theology  is  free  from  pantheism. 
Any  representation  of  the  transcendence  as  different  in  quality 
from  the  immanence,  such  as  that  immanence  represents  the  actual 
or  real  being  of  God,  while  transcendence  represents  the  ideal 
being  of  God ;  or  that  immanence  represents  the  known  being  of 
God,  while  transcendence  represents  the  unknown  being  of  God,  — 
is  contrary  to  Christian  theism  and  in  the  interest  of  pantheism. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  omnipresence  of  God,  as  the 
divine  essence  present  everywhere,  does  not  satisfy  the  advocates 
of  the  divine  immanence  according  to  the  Greek  Fathers.  They 
call  this  omnipresence  a  presence  merely  by  "  contact,"  or  "  con- 
tiguity," while  they  are  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  that  "  per- 
vasive" and  "permeating"  presence  of  the  divine  essence  which 
constitutes  the  identity  of  the  human  with  the  divine.  They  can 
affirm,  with  Professor  Cocker,  that  "  God  is  immanent  in  man,  and 
that  man  is  immanent  in  God,"  and  that  "  the  reason  of  man  is 
a  beam  of  the  eternal  reason."  1    In  general,  the  advocates  of 

»Theistic  Conception  of  the  World,  p.  353. 


20 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


this  Divine  Immanency  claim  that  any  view  of  creation  which 
represents  man  as  other  than  God  in  being,  action,  reason,  moral 
attributes,  and  personality,  is  a  deistical  view.  To  this  effect 
Dr.  Douglass  says  that  "Divine  Immanency  stands  opposed  to 
dualism  in  all  its  forms."  1  It  follows,  then,  that  God  and  man 
are  in  no  sense  two,  but  are  in  reality  one.  When  man  thinks, 
chooses,  and  acts,  it  is  not  man  as  an  individual  person  and  free 
agent  that  does  these  things,  but  God  who  thinks,  chooses,  and 
acts  in  human  form.  In  short,  this  Immanence  represents  God 
as  in  the  continuous  act  of  a  creation  which  consists  solely  in  the 
evolution  of  himself  ;  hence  there  can  be  no  dualism,  and  no  such 
distinction  as  that  between  the  Natural  and  the  Supernatural, 
between  Immanence  and  Transcendence,  for  the  only  proper  thing 
to  say  of  God  is,  that  he  is  the  "All." 

Thus,  though  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  it  is  not  indicated 
what  definite  shade  of  meaning  is  attached  to  the  "  divine  imma- 
nence, in  accordance  with  the  highest  thought  of  the  Greek 
Fathers,"  yet  the  statements  of  these  Fathers  respecting  this  doc- 
trine, as  well  as  the  interpretation  of  experts  and  the  views  of 
those  holding  the  doctrine,  show  conclusively  that  the  basis  of  the 
doctrine  is  pantheistic  philosophy,  and  therefore  that  it  is  opposed 
to  the  Christian  theism  of  the  Andover  Creed. 

II.  In  the  second  place,  the  pantheistic  philosophy  of  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy"  is  seen  in  the  substantial  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  required  in  the  Andover  Creed,  in  favor  of 
a  Modal  or  Monarchian  theory.  Theologically,  this  has  already 
been  argued  under  the  seventh  charge  of  the  list,  so  that  here 
there  is  only  occasion  for  brief  reference  to  the  philosophy  on 
which  the  Modal  theory  rests,  as  illustrated  by  the  views  of 
Sabellius  and  Arius. 

In  the  Sabellian  view,  the  names  Father,  Logos,  and  Holy 
Ghost  are  simply  "  designations  of  three  different  phases  under 
which  the  one  divine  essence  reveals  itself."2  The  Father — the 
Absolute  —  remains  the  same,  but  evolves  himself  in  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit,  while  in  the  Triad  there  is  no  distinction  as  to  essence. 
There  being  no  personal  distinction  in  the  Triad,  there  was 
nothing  inconsistent  in  supposing  these  only  seeming  personalities 
should  disappear,  be  annihilated,  or  be  reabsorbed  in  the  essence 

1  Divine  Inimaneucy,  Bib.  Sac.  vols,  xlv-xlvii.  2  Neander,  vol.  i,  p.  595. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


21 


of  the  impersonal  Absolute.  But  this  implied  the  completed  pan- 
theistic circle  of  evolution  and  involution,  in  respect  to  which 
Neander  justly  remarks  that  "  as  Sabellius  made  Christ's  per- 
sonality to  be  nothing  more  than  a  transient  appearance,  so  he 
must  have  conceived  it  to  be  also  in  regard  to  all  personal  exist- 
ence." 1  Thus  Sabellianism  was  based  on  that  pantheistic  philos- 
ophy of  Emanation  which  confounded  God  with  the  world. 

Arius  undoubtedly  supposed  that  he  was  establishing  "  the 
Oriental  system  of  emanation  and  subordination  which  obtained  a 
settled  form  through  the  labors  of  Origen."-  But  this  system 
was  pantheistic,  whether  in  speaking  of  the  Logos  as  an  emanation 
or  a  radiation  from  God.  In  Origeu's  conception  of  Christ  it 
must  be  kept  in  mind  that  he  believed  in  the  "  preexistence  of 
souls,"  and  "  the  original  rectitude,  and  perfect  equality,  of  all 
created  spirits,  as  they  came  from  the  hand  of  their  Maker ;  but 
when  they  all  declined,  though  in  different  degrees,  from  their  first 
and  perfect  love,  and  thence  received  their  diverse  assignations, 
in  earth  and  skies,  that,  which  is  now  the  soul  of  Jesus,  was 
alone  found  stedfast.  As  a  reward  for  this  integrity,  and  to 
effect  the  purposes  of  the  divine  Incarnation,  this  soul  was 
received  into  the  most  perfect  union  with  the  Logos,  they  [this 
soul  and  the  Logos]  completely  embraciug  each  other,  so  as  to 
become  in  a  sense  One  Spirit.  Thus  united,  and  by  this  indis- 
pensable medium,  God  was  born  a  man."3  Now  this  pantheistic 
conception  of  the  Christ,  in  whom  the  Logos  of  itself  was  not  a 
person  since  only  a  ray  shot  out  from  the  Father,  but  became  a 
person  through  union  with  the  preexistent  soul  of  Jesus,  was 
retained  in  the  view  of  Arius,  as  he  understood  it,  so  that  when 
he  called  Christ  a  creature  he  only  intended  to  affirm  that  there 
was  a  time  when  he  did  not  exist,  without  assuming  in  any 
manner  that  his  origin  was  not  by  emanation  when  at  length  his 
being  began.  Thus,  however  Sabellius  and  Arius  may  have 
differed  in  other  respects,  they  agreed  in  this,  that  the  origin  of 
the  Son  was  by  emanation  from  the  Father ;  for  the  thought  is 
the  same  whether  it  be  said  that  the  Son  proceeds  from  the  Father 
by  efflux,  radiation,  emanation,  or  evolution.  To  admit  that 
evolution  is  legitimate  in  the  Infinite  and  Eternal,  and  so  in  the 
divine  essence ;  that  this  essence  has  continually  the  power  of 

'Neander,  vol.  1,  p.  600.        2  Ibid,  vol.  ii,  pp.  360,  361.        a  Bib.  Repos.  1834,  p.  225. 


•22 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


becoming,  by  any  extension  which  implies  that  this  essence  exists 
at  one  time  as  it  did  not  exist  at  another  time,  —  is  to  admit  a 
cardinal  principle  of  pantheism.  Hence  the  safeguard  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  consists  primarily  in  holding  fast 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  Trinity,  One  God  in  three  coeternal 
Persons,  or  Hypostases,  equal  in  honor,  power,  and  glory,  and 
each  God  as  implying  the  other  Two. 

In  our  theological  argument  on  the  seventh  complaint  we 
showed  that  in  some  respects  the  doctrine  of  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  respecting  the  Trinity  was  far  easier  to  reconcile  with  the 
Arian  doctrine  than  with  the  orthodox  Trinitarian  doctrine  ;  while 
in  some  other  respects  it  was  in  accord  with  the  Modal  theory  of 
Sabellius.  And  we  now  say  that  these  Sabellian  and  Arian 
aspects  of  the  Trinity,  according  to  "Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
depend  upon  the  pantheistic  philosophy  of  emanation  which 
underlies  them.  In  either  of  these  aspects  there  may  be  some- 
thing in  Christ  admitted  to  be  divine,  for  in  either  case  Christ  is 
an  evolution  of  God,  but  not  the  Second  Hypostasis  of  the 
Trinity,  Incarnate,  according  to  the  Trinity  of  Christian  theism 
in  the  Seminary  Creed.  Taken  as  such  an  evolution  the 
divine  in  Christ  might  be  consistently  regarded  as  variable  in 
degree,  and  progressive  in  the  manifestation  of  intelligence  and 
power.  When  pantheistic  philosophy,  modern  as  well  as  ancient, 
can  affirm  that  "  the  divine  Spirit  is  in  embryo  in  man  in  various 
stages  of  development,"  then,  according  to  this  philosophy,  theol- 
ogy will  not  be  charged  with  inconsistency  in  affirming  that  he 
who  Is  called  the  Son  of  God  was  developed  through  periods  of 
comparative  ignorance  and  knowledge,  weakness  and  power. 

III.  In  the  third  place,  the  conception  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
according  to  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  is  in  harmony  with  panthe- 
istic philosophy. 

There  is  no  proper  distinction  between  the  divine  and  human 
natures  such  as  is  recognized  in  the  Seminary  Creed.  The  two 
natures  are  represented  as  having  a  natural  affinity  for  eacli  other, 
so  that  upon  contact  they  mingle,  "  interpenetrate,"  and  coalesce 
into  personal  identity.  However  they  might  be  conceived  pre- 
vious to  this  contact,  or  union  ;  as  that  one  was  divine  nature,  and 
the  other  human  nature  ;  or  that  one  was  supernatural  and  the 
other  natural,  —  it  is  obvious  that  upon  this  union  these  distinctions 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


23 


were  no  longer  applicable.  If  used  at  all,  they  must  properly 
refer  to  the  source  of  this  union,  and  not  to  the  union  as  consti- 
tuted, so  that  "Christ's  history  has  for  its  foundation  two 
natures,"  while  "  the  act  of  incarnation  is  the  union  of  these 
two," 1  so  that  they  appear  to  have  become  identical.  This 
seems  to  be  a  recovery  of  the  doctrine  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
who  held  to  the  "  existence  of  One  Christ  in  the  united  deity  and 
humanity"  in  such  a  way  that  he  could  "transfer  the  human 
predicates  to  the  divine  essence,  and  the  divine  to  the  human."2 
From  this,  it  has  been  said  that  Cyril's  doctrine  ought  not  to  be 
charged  with  holding  notions  whereby  the  divine  and  human 
natures  were  confounded,  and  transferred  into  each  other.  But 
while  this  might  be  claimed  from  the  paradoxical  language  used, 
yet  it  appears  sufficiently  evident  that  the  predicates  of  the 
divine  and  the  human  were  distinctly  apart,  only  in  referring  to 
the  origin  of  Christ  as  a  union  of  the  divine  and  the  human  ;  while 
in  the  actual  case  after  this  union  the  two  natures  should  no 
longer  be  distinguished,  but  that  both  classes  of  attributes  were 
alike  referred  to  one  and  the  same  Son  of  God.  The  same  thing 
appears  in  Cyril's  anathemas  against  Nestorius,  where  he  affirms 
that  Christ  was  formed  out  of  two  natures,  formed  of  two  things 
into  an  indissoluble  unity,  such  as  to  allow  of  "  the  unconditional 
transfer  of  predicates."  3  Thus,  according  to  Giesler,  "  Cyril 
seemed  entirely  to  do  away  with  the  two  natures  of  Christ."4  So 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy "  does  away  with  the  two  natures  of 
Christ.    It  is  said  that 

The  constitutive  act  for  Christ's  person  is  the  union  of  two  natures. 
One  of  these,  the  human,  is  only  potentially  personal,  and  is  capable  by 
its  very  constitution,  of  entering  into  a  divine  life,  of  finding  the  truth 
of  its  existence  in  God.  The  other  is  a  particular  mode  of  the  divine 
being,  not  in  itself  a  person,  but  the  bearer  of  a  personal  principle,  and 
capable  of  self-realization  in  a  human  life.  The  act  of  incarnation  is 
the  union  of  these  two.5 

Thus  the  two  natures  have  in  their  individual  constitution  that 
affinity  of  the  one  for  the  other  which  attracts  them  into  unity. 
The  full  realization  of  the  human  nature  is  not  attained  until  it 
finds  the  truth  of  its  existence  in  God.    Nor  is  the  full  realization 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  30.        Meander,  vol.  ii,  p. 444.         » Ibid.  vol.  ii,  p.  464.  4  Eccl. 

Hist,  i,  p.  399.      s  prog.  0rth.  pp.  30>  31. 


24 


Argument  on  TJiirteenth  Complaint. 


of  the  divine  nature  attained  until  it  finds  its  self-realization  in 
a  human  life.  The  one  is  the  complement  of  the  other  so  that 
their  completeness  is  found  only  in  that  union  which  shows  their 
identity. 

The  divine  nature  and  the  human  interpenetrate  each  other.  The 
divine  informs  the  human.  The  human  receives  and  expresses  the 
divine.' 

Now  that  the  two  natures  have  become  one,  there  is  no  longer 
any  consistency  in  speaking  of  them  as  two.  Only  before  they 
became  one  may  they  be  referred  to  as,  then,  the  human  and  the 
divine  ;  but  since  they  became  one  such  reference  is  impertinent. 
Now,  since  the  evolution  of  this  unity,  there  is  in  reality  but  one 
Nature  as  there  is  but  one  Personality.  Any  attempt  to  represent 
the  one,  as  two,  ends  in  senseless  paradox.  It  may  be  said  of  , 
the  personality  of  Christ  that 

It  is  the  personality  of  the  creative  Word,  but  not  simply  this.  It  is 
the  personality  of  the  created  nature,  but  not  merely  this.  It  is  the  one 
as  affected  by  the  other.* 

But  this  mystical  balancing  of  affirmation  with  negation  is  a 
waste  of  words,  unless  it  should  be  conceived  as  done  to  mislead 
those  who  hold  that  Christ  "  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two 
distinct  natures  and  one  person  forever,"  according  to  the 
Seminary  Creed. 

Again,  this  personality  of  Christ,  in  which  by  "  interpenetra- 
tion  "  the  humau  and  divine  natures  are  resolved  into  identity, 
continues  to  be  subject  to  pantheistic  evolution.  As  at  first  both 
the  human  and  the  divine  were  an  evolution  of  God,  so  after  the 
union  of  the  human  and  divine  in  the  person  of  Christ,  this  union, 
or  person,  was  the  subject  of  a  further  evolution. 

This  personality  was  not  fully  realized  in  the  beginning.  There  was 
not  only  growth  of  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  but  a  progressive  union  with 
the  divine. 

The  Incarnation  itself,  though  real  at  the  beginning,  was  also  a 
process  which  had  steps  which  the  records  of  Jesus'  life  enable  us  in 
some  degree  to  trace  and  understand.3 

It  is  important  to  observe  here  that  those  who  hold  to  "  two 
distinct  natures  "  in  Christ,  according  to  the  Seminary  Creed,  find 

"  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  30,  31.      2  Ibid.  pp.  30,  31.      «  Ibid.  p.  32. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint.  25 


that  be  was  distinctly  conscious  of  himself  as  being  divine,  and 
just  as  distinctly  conscious  of  himself  as  being  human.  Thus, 
whatever  growth  or  development  might  attach  to  his  human 
nature,  in  which  he  might  be  considered  as  passing  from  infancy 
to  manhood  and  from  ignorance  to  knowledge,  yet,  none  of  these 
limitations  could  attach  to  Christ  as  being  divine.  But  the  theory 
under  consideration  does  not  admit  that  Christ  had  this  conscious- 
ness of  himself  as  being  both  human  and  divine,  but  affirms  that 
there  was  in  his  consciousness  a  centre,  a  consciousness  in  which 
his  individual  personality  was  grounded  ;  a  consciousness  which 
was 

That  point  of  rest  and  union,  and  therefore  of  life  and  power,  where 
the  divine  nature  realizes  the  experiences  of  the  human  as  its  own, 
where  the  human  realizes  that  its  completeness  and  perfection  are  in 
God;  the  centre  of  a  divine-human  consciousness,  and  this  Personal 
centre  is  the  God-man.1 

Taking  this  view,  consistency  requires  the  assertion  that 
at  the  Incarnation  the  Logos,  or  the  divine  in  Christ,  "  sus- 
pended the  exercise  of  his  attributes  of  Omniscience,  Omnipres- 
ence, and  the  like,"  so  as  to  furnish  the  necessary  conditions  for 
assuming  the  veritable  evolution  of  Christ's  consciousness  and 
personality  from  the  moment  of  his  Incarnation.  Thus,  Christ 
in  his  personality  is  brought  down  near  to  the  level  of  the  human, 
since  the  limitation  and  depression  of  the  attributes  of  the  divine 
in  him  are  not  compensated  by  any  sufficient  corresponding  ele- 
vation of  the  attributes  of  the  human  ;  for  when  it  is  said  that 
"the  human  realizes  that  its  completeness  and  perfection  are  in 
God,"  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  this  "completeness"  and 
"  perfection  "  are  not  yet  attained,  but  to  be  attained  some  time 
in  the  future  as  the  result  of  evolution.  Thus  while  on  earth 
Christ  was  much  more  human  than  divine,  so  that  whatever  great- 
ness might  be  then  ascribed  to  him  was  made  contingent  upon 
subsequent  evolution. 

This  view  has  the  support  of  Origen's  emanation  theory, 
undoubtedly,2  as  well  as  that  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  and  Greg- 
ory of  Nyssa,  who  to  some  extent  carried  forward  Origen's 
theory.  "They  adopted  from  Origen  the  doctrine  that  the  Logos 
united  himself  by  the  mediation  of  a  rational  human  soul  with  the 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  32.      2  Ibid.  p.  22. 


26 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


sensuous  nature.  The  essential  point  of  this  union,  the  character- 
istic mark  of  the  personal  unity,  they  placed  in  this  :  namely,  that 
the  divine  Logos  took  all  the  parts  of  human  nature  into  fel- 
lowship with  himself,  and  "pervaded"  them.  They  affirmed,  it 
is  true,  that  this  "permeation"  took  place  potentially  from  the 
first  moment  of  the  human  existence ;  but,  with  Origen,  they 
taught  at  the  same  time  that  its  consequences,  in  respect  to  all 
the  parts  of  human  nature,  did  not  unfold  themselves  until  after 
Christ's  resurrection  ;  that  after  his  ascension  to  glory,  his  body 
also  became  transfigured  to  a  form  analagous  with  the  divine 
essence."  1  This  view  was  accepted  essentially  by  the  Antiochian 
School  under  the  lead  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  "The  pro- 
gressive deification  of  the  human  nature  in  Christ  up  to  the  time 
of  his  ascension  to  glory,  he  contemplated  as  a  consequence  and 
effect  of  the  original  and  hidden  union  —  the  very  end  for  which 
God  had  appropriated  the  human  nature  -even  from  its  birth."2 
Thus,  man,  being  from  the  first  a  God-man  as  an  evolution  of 
God,  becomes  in  a  higher  degree  a  God-man  through  the  incarna- 
tion of  the  Logos,  or  Word,  since  this  incarnation  represents  the 
further  evolution  of  the  divine  in  humanity  through  the  Christ,  so 
that  as  ultimately  after  Christ's  resurrection  his  humanity  became 
"  delocalized,"  "deified,"  and  "omnipresent,"  —  reabsorbed  in 
God, —  so  ultimately  through  Christ  whose  "Headship  has  a  foun- 
dation in  the  permanent  constitution  of  the  human  soul,  and  is  fitly 
as  enduring  as  its  immortality,"  3  all  the  human  race  will  become 
deified,  reabsorbed  in  God.  Thus  it  is  affirmed  that  here  is  "an 
evolution  which  looks  to  an  incarnation  as  to  its  adequate  goal. 
All  things  point  to  man,  and  man  as  perfected  in  the  Son  of 
Man."4  Held  in  logical  consistency,  free  of  mystical  contradic- 
tious by  which  whatever  is  affirmed  is  also  denied,  and  without 
any  mere  show  of  making  it  consistent  with  the  Christian  theism 
of  the  Scriptures  or  with  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  this  doctrine 
of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  respecting  the  Incarnation  belongs 
to  the  pantheism  of  the  East.  In  reality,  man  is  not  ever  other 
.than  God,  is  always  potentially  identical  with  God  in  the  quality 
of  his  being,  while  the  Incarnation  is  the  evolutionary  process  by 
which  the  identity  of  the  human  with  the  divine  is  displayed  not 

i  Neamler,  vol.  ii,  p.  427;  vol.  i,  p.  639.  2  Ibid.  vol.  ii,  p.  437.         3  Prog.  Orth. 

p.  34.      *  Ibid.  p.  35. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


27 


only  as  to  quality,  but  in  all  the  conceivable  fulness  of  accom- 
plished fact. 

Now,  it  is  not  to  be  taken  as  evidence  of  the  orthodoxy  of 
those  holding  this  view,  or  that  they  are  in  harmony  with  the 
Creed  of  the  Seminary,  that  they  assert  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
For  as  Canon  Liddon  has  well  said,  "  When  Jesus  Christ  is  said 
by  his  Church  to  be  God,  that  word  is  used  in  its  natural,  its 
absolute,  its  incommunicable  sense.  This  must  be  constantly 
borne  in  mind,  if  we  would  escape  from  equivocations  which 
might  again  obscure  the  true  point  before  us."  "  For,"  continues 
Liddon,  "  Arianism  will  confess  Christ's  divinity,  if,  when  it 
terms  him  God,  it  may  really  mean  that  he  is  a  being  of  an  infe- 
rior and  created  nature.  Socinianism  will  confess  Christ's  divin- 
ity, if  this  confession  involves  nothing  more  emphatic  than  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  fact  that  certain  moral  features  of  God's 
character  shone  forth  from  the  human  life  of  Christ  with  an 
absolutely  unrivaled  splendor.  Pantheism  will  confess  Christ's 
divinity,  but  then  it  is  a  divinity  which  he  must  share  with  the 
universe.  Christ  may  well  be  divine,  when  all  is  divine,  although 
pantheism  too  may  admit  that  Christ  is  divine  in  a  higher  sense 
than  any  other  man,  because  he  has  more  clearly  recognized  or 
exhibited  '  the  eternal  oneness  of  the  finite  and  the  Infinite,  of 
God  aud  humanity.'  The  coarsest  forms  of  unbelief  will  confess 
our  Lord's  divinity,  if  the}7  may  proceed  to  add.  by  way  of  ex- 
planation, that  such  language  is  but  the  echo  of  an  apotheosis, 
informally  decreed  to  the  prophet  of  Nazareth  by  the  fervid  but 
uncritical  enthusiasm  of  his  Church."  1 

In  keeping  with  Liddon's  statement,  it  must  be  said  that  it  is  of 
no  avail  for  those  who  accept  of  the  confounding  of  the  divine 
with  the  human  by  their  mutual  "  interpenetration  "  in  the  Person 
of  Christ,  to  say  in  extenuation  that  they  confess  our  Lord's 
divinity.  For  in  this  case,  scientifically  considered,  our  Lord  is 
neither  divine  nor  human.  When  two  metals  are  fused  together 
so  that  they  interpenetrate,  science  gives  to  the  amalgam  a  new 
name.  It  is  no  longer  recognized  by  either  of  the  two  metals  out 
of  which  the  amalgam  is  produced.  When  by  fusion  copper  and 
zinc  combine,  the  amalgam  is  neither  copper  nor  zinc,  but  brass. 
Such  is  the  miserable  alloy  presented  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 

1  Canon  Liddon's  Bamptou  Lectures  on  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  1866,  p.  39. 


28 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


as  an  equivalent  for  the  declaration  in  the  Andover  Creed  that 
"  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  .  .  .  became  man,  and  continues  to  be 
God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  Person  forever." 
The  only  escape  from  the  force  of  this  illustration  in  the  premises 
is  to  affirm  that  there  never  was  any  distinction  between  the  so- 
called  divine  and  human,  that  in  reality  they  were  always  one, 
and  that  it  is  only  an  illusion  when  they  are  spoken  of  as  differ- 
ent. But  this  would  be  to  make  the  honest  and  frank  confessiou 
of  the  pantheism  which  really  underlies  the  view  in  question. 

IV.  In  the  fourth  place,  the  philosophy  of  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  which  requires  a  pantheistic  Incarnation  requires  a  panthe- 
istic atonement.  Such  an  atonement  is  consistently  furnished  by 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy."  Such  an  atonement  could  not  be 
ascribed  to  Christ  as  simply  the  Mediator  to  save  man  from  sin. 
As  contrary  to  this,  or  according  to  what  is  claimed  as  a  broader 
view,  "Christ  mediates  God  to  the  entire  universe."1  This,  how- 
ever, conforms  to  the  pagan  view  of  the  Logos,  in  his  cosmic  rela- 
tion to  creation,  rather  than  to  his  mediatorial  character  as  the 
Redeemer  of  sinners.  This  pagan  view  of  the  Logos,  not  as  a 
Person,  or  Hypostasis  in  the  being  of  God,  but  as  an  emanation 
from  God,  has  already  been  noticed  according  to  the  statement  of 
Milmau.  The  attempt  has  often  been  made  to  show  that  in  the 
Gospel  of  John  this  pagan  notion  finds  support,  because  that  John 
declares  that  "  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  was 
made."  But  since  the  purpose  of  John  is  to  declare  the  equality 
of  the  Word  with  the  Father,  and  as  eternally  preexisteut  and 
manifested  in  Time  and  Space  for  the  gracious  ends  of  Divine 
Love  in  Redemption,  it  follows  that  John  did  not  adopt  in  any 
degree  the  pagan  view  of  the  Logos,  or  the  teaching  of  any  of 
the  existing  philosophies.  When  John  says  that  "  God  so  loved 
the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life,"2  he 
shows  that  the  one  ground  of  the  divine  counsel  in  Redemption 
was  the  salvation  of  men  from  sin.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  the 
Mediatorship  of  Christ  according  to  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  having  its  ground  in  the  pagan,  or  Philo-Judean  phi- 
losophy, notwithstanding  the  speculations  to  the  contrary  of  the 
Tubingen  School. 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  43.      *  Johu  3 :  16. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint.  29 


Not  accepting,  then,  the  pagan  or  pantheistic  conception  of 
the  Logos  as  explanatory  of  John's  conception  of  the  Word,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  conception  of  the  atonement  as  founded  on  the 
former  must  stand  in  open  hostility  to  the  conception  of  atone- 
ment as  founded  on  the  latter.  According  to  the  pagan  physical 
and  metaphysical  conception  of  the  Logos  it  is  legitimate  to  say 
that  "The  Logos,  that  which  is  absolute  fulness  and  truth  in 
God,  is  communicated  into  finite  existences"  ; 1  that  Christ's  uni- 
verse "  is  not  attached  to  him  externally,  but  vitally"  ;  that  "  He 
is  not  a  Governor  set  over  it,  but  is  its  life  everywhere." 2  In 
this  view  Christ  is  not  regarded  as  in  objective  relation  to  the 
universe,  or  to  man.  His  relation  to  man  is  subjective  :  he  is  not 
attached  to  man  externally,  or  objectively,  but  is  attached  to  man 
vitally,  or  subjectively.  Whatever  benefit  Christ  confers  on  man 
must  result  from  the  evolution  of  himself  as  identical  with  man's 
vitality,  as  himself  communicated  into  man's  finite  existence  as 
an  absolute  fulness,  or  integral  part  of  man's  existence.  So 
Christ  cannot  be  an  objective  Governor  of  man,  because  he  is  the 
subjective  life  of  man  everywhere.  Thus,  carried  out,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  an  objective  Ruler,  or  Law.  There  is  no  external 
Lord  of  Creation,  no  objective  King  of  saints,  no  objective  Lamb 
of  God  to  receive  the  prayers  of  his  saints  on  earth,  or  their 
songs  of  praise  hereafter  in  heaven.  Whatever  there  is,  called 
obedience  and  praise,  under  this  theory,  is  solely  the  subjective 
evolution  of  Christ  in  men  as  identical  with  their  life,  because  he 
is  their  life  everywhere.  In  reality,  however,  there  can  be, 
according  to  this  conception  of  Christ,  no  such  thing  as  obedience 
or  praise,  and  because  that,  strictly,  there  is  nothing  other  than 
man,  and  objective  to  man,  to  be  obeyed  and  praised.  The  poet 
can  idealize  a  flower  as  having  a  self-conscious  existence,  and  so 
praising  its  Creator  in  the  unfolding  of  its  blushing  tint  and 
graceful  carriage.  So  the  pantheistic  poet  can  idealize  man  as 
praising  God,  while  at  the  same  time  he  denies  to  man  that  pure 
human  self-conscious  personality  by  which  he  could  recognize  and 
praise  God  as  the  supreme  object  of  his  regard.  Of  course,  in 
the  pagan  notion  of  the  Logos,  there  is  no  consistent  foundation 
for  the  vicarious  atonement  of  John  and  Paul.  Any  attempt  to 
produce  a  theory  of  atonement  on  that  foundation  in  harmony 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  43.      2  Ibid.  p.  44. 


30  Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


with  the  Scriptures  which  everywhere  assert  the  objective  being 
of  God  in  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  as  objective  to  man, 
while  imparting  help  to  man  by  the  efficiency  of  grace,  must  end 
in  the  confusion  and  contradiction  of  pantheistic  mysticism. 
This  confusion  is  illustrated  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  in  the 
statements  made  respecting  the  Person  of  Christ  in  considering 
the  atonemeut,  as  well  as  in  what  is  said  of  the  Incarnation. 
This  Person  is  said  to  be 

The  Infinite,  personally  disclosed;  the  eternal  Power  that  makes  for 
righteousness  realized  in  the  Eighteous  One.1 

Christ's  personality  is  directly  and  indissolubly  connected  with  that 
of  the  divine  Word.  The  one  is  a  true  revelation  and  outgrowth  of  the 
other.2 

The  human  nature  is  a  person  only  with,  in,  and  through  the  Logos. 
The  central  point  of  Christ's  personality  falls  into  the  central  point  of 
Absolute  Personality.3 

It  is  said  that 

One  view  of  atonement  is  gained  hy  considering  the  historical  Christ 
in  relation  to  humanity  and  as  identified  with  it :  in  which  view  we  see 
that  the  race  of  men  with  Christ  in  it  is  essentially  different  in  fact,  and 
therefore  in  the  sight  of  God,  from  the  same  race  without  Christ  in  it.4 

Christ  has  an  organic  relation  to  the  race.  He  is  an  individual,  but 
an  individual  vitally  related  to  every  human  being.5 

His  divinity,  indeed,  is  in  nothing  more  clearly  shown  than  in  his 
perfect  humanity  :  in  the  fact  that  he  was  not  merely  the  ideal  man,  but 
the  universal  man,  his  humanity  not  something  strange  to  his  divinity, 
hut  its  best  and  purest  organ. 

When  Christ  suffers  the  race  suffers.  When  Christ  is  sorrowful  the 
race  is  sorrowful. 

Thus  we  can  regard  him  as  our  substitute,  not  because  he  stands 
apart,  not  because  he  is  one  and  the  race  another,  but  because  he  is  so 
intimately  identified  with  us.6 

The  race  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  and  is  other  in  the  sight  of  God, 
because  different  in  fact.7 

Christ  is  a  new  divine  power  in  the  race  to  turn  it  away  from  sin 
unto  God.8 

The  extent  of  the  atonement  resides  ...  in  the  personality  of  Christ. 
He  is  the  Universal  Person,  as  we  said  at  the  outset.9 
Humanity  with  Christ  in  it  is  propitiated  to  the  divine  thought  from 
all  eternity.10 

»  Prog.  Orth.  p.  35.  >  Ibid.  p.  26.  3  Ibid.  p.  30.  *  Ibid.  p.  52.  »  Ibid.  p.  52. 
0  Ibid.  p.  53.      'Ibid.  p.  56.       «  Ibid.  p.  58.      »  Ibid.  p.  63.      >°  Ibid.  p.  61. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint.  31 


Now,  the  confusion  of  thought  respecting  the  Person  of  Christ 
as  indicated  in  these  passages  arises  from  representing  him  at  one 
time  as  an  individual  so  that  in  his  Person  he  is  other  than  man  ; 
and  at  another  time  representing  him  as  one  with,  or  identical 
with,  man.  Though  it  is  said  that  Christ  is  "  an  individual,"  it  is 
also  said  that  he  "  is  an  individual  vitally  related  to  every  human 
being."  He  is  related  to  every  human  being  because  he  "has  an 
organic  relation  to  the  race."  While  language  is  used  which 
seems  to  designate  the  real  individuality  of  Christ's  Person,  it  is 
also  positively  affirmed  that  Christ  "  is  the  universal  Person." 
As  Hegel's  pantheism  would  not  admit  the  distinct,  individual 
personality  of  God,  but  described  him  as  "  the  Universal  Person- 
ality, which  realizes  itself  in  every  human  consciousness,"  so  here 
it  would  seem  that  Christ  as  the  "  Universal  Person  "  is  not  repre- 
sented as  a  personality  distinct  from  the  personalities  of  the  hu- 
man race  ;  but  that  Christ  as  a  person  realizes  himself  in  every 
human  consciousness,  so  that  he  is  the  Universal  Man,  his  human- 
ity not  something  strange  to  his  divinity,  but  its  best  and  purest 
organ."  But  all  this  is  consistent  with  Hegel's  pantheistic  Chris- 
tology.  He  views  the  idea  of  redemption  as  the  reunion  of  what 
he  calls  the  individualized  spirit  of  man  with  the  Spirit  of  eternal 
truth  and  love.  The  race  as  composed  of  individuals  becomes 
one  with  God,  forming  a  part  of  his  own  essence,  members  of  his 
mystical  body.  Thus  being  one  with  Christ  is  being  one  with  God 
in  essence.  To  this,  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  seems  to  respond 
without  dissent  in  representing  "the  great  reality  of  reconcilia- 
tion" as  "God  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  man,"  as  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Christ's  words  :  "I  in  them  and  thou  in  me,  that  they 
may  be  perfected  into  one."  1  These  words  of  Christ,  then,  do  not 
express  the  similarity  of  the  unity  of  Christ  with  believers  to  the 
unity  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  —  not  the  moral  or  spiritual 
oneness  of  the  Saviour  with  all  believers  ;  but  they  express  unity 
in  the  "  actuality  of  its  substance,  in  Christ  abiding  in  them  and 
the  Father  in  Christ."  2  Thus  the  unity  of  believers  in  Christ  has 
actual  subsistence  in  the  divine  essence  of  the  unity  of  the 
Father  in  Christ.  This  is  a  phase  of  Maurice's  Realistic  theory 
as  held  by  Alford.  To  show  that  the  atonement  was  not  vica- 
rious, Alford  says  that  "  the  body  of  Christ  was  not  the  body  of 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  62.      2  Alford  on  John  17 : 21-23. 


32 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


a  man,  but  the  body  of  mail  —  of  mankind  —  the  pattern,  and 
centre,  and  root,  and  head  of  that  nature  which  is  common  to  all 
of  us,  and  in  which  every  human  being,  of  all  nations,  kindreds, 
and  languages  has  a  share."  "And  so,  when  that  Victim  hung 
upon  the  Cross,  it  was  not  the  slaying  of  one  mere  man  for  an- 
other, which  is  impossible  ;  nor  was  it  a  mere  symbolic  sacrifice, 
like  those  under  the  old  law  ;  but  it  was  the  offering  up  of  Human 
Nature  in  its  head  and  root — a  taking  away  of  sin  by  its  penalty 
being  paid  to  the  uttermost."  Thus,  "  at  once,  human  nature, 
our  manhood,  all  mankind,  was  in  the  sight  of  the  Father  ac- 
quitted from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  received  into  his  favor."  1 

Now,  to  say  that  Christ  "  had  no  human  individuality  "  ;  that  his 
was  "  the  body  of  mankind  —  the  pattern,  and  centre,  and  root, 
and  head  of  that  nature  which  is  common  to  all  of  us,  and  in 
which  every  human  being  has  a  share,"  —  is  evidently  only  another 
way  of  saving  that  Christ  was  not  an  individual  person,  but  a 
"  Universal  Person  "  ;  that  his  was  the  "  Universal  Personality," 
which  realizes  itself  in  every  human  consciousness.  This  is  the 
identity  of  Christ  with  universal  humanity.  And  as  Christ  took 
into  union  with  his  divine  Person  and  Nature  the  manhood,  the 
entire  nature  of  man  —  so  the  human  is  identical  with  the  divine. 
Thus  the  unity  of  Christ  with  humanity  has  actual  subsistence  in 
the  divine  essence  of  the  unity  of  the  Father  in  Christ.  But  this 
is  a  Christology  evolved  from  the  Hegelian  pantheism,  and  held 
by  some  German  theologians,  as  well  as  by  some  English  theo- 
logians of  less  repute,  perhaps,  than  Alford.  There  are  doubt- 
less others  in  this  country,  besides  those  represented  in  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy,"  who  entertain  this  theory  in  some  form.  They 
may  refuse  assent  to  many  things  in  the  Hegelian  method,  and 
yet  retain  its  substance.  So  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  does  "  not 
claim  for  the  later  thought  on  the  Incarnation  any  exclusive 
originality."2  The  Newness  of  this  theology  consists  rather  in 
gathering  up  and  appropriating  the  results  of  past  discussions 
along  the  course  of  Church  history,  and  especially  during  the  last 
half-century.  The  sources  from  which  such  results  may  be  gath- 
ered even  since  the  dawn  of  the  Keformation  are  quite  sufficient. 
There  were  others  besides  Osiander  who  held  the  oneness  of  God 

lAlford's  Sermons,  preached  in  Quebec  Chapel  in  1854,  p.  242  sq.  2  Prog.  Orth. 
p.  38. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint.  33 


and  man,  that  man  is  God  in  at  least  one  form  of  his  existence, 
so  that  Christ  is  the  realized  ideal  of  the  Godhead  —  a  view  which, 
Baur  says,  at  last  found  adequate  scientific  expression  by  Hegel. 

Schwenkfeld  held  that  Christ  was  begotten  of  God  even  as  to 
his  humanity,  and  as  to  both  natures  was  Dei  filius  naturalis, 
natural  Son  of  God.1  Servetus,  like  Schwenkfeld,  "  speaks  of 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  of  his  body  and  his  soul  as  consubstantial 
with  God,  but  in  a  sense  which  admits  of  an  ill-defined  boundary- 
line  between  nature  and  grace  :  for,  according  to  his  theosophic 
philosophy  of  nature,  everything  is  of  divine  substance."2 

As  with  Servetus,  so  in  all  phases  of  pantheistic  Christology : 
the  boundary-line  between  nature  and  grace,  as  between  the  natu- 
ral and  the  supernatural,  is  ill-defined.  That  line  cannot  be 
clearly  defined  except  upon  the  admission  of  that  dualism  which 
allows  the  individual  personality  of  the  Being  giving  the  grace, 
with  the  individual  personality  of  the  being  receiving  the  grace. 
In  such  proportion  as  this  personality  of  the  Giver  and  receiver 
are  confounded  or  identified,  grace  disappears.  Hence  the  doc- 
trines of  grace  taught  by  Augustine,  though  on  the  authority  of 
St.  Paul,  as  well  as  of  the  Scriptures  generally,  are  offensive  to 
the  advocates  of  the  New  theology,  who,  like  Professor  Allen,  so 
identify  Christ  with  humanity  by  his  presence  in  the  reason  and 
conscience  of  man  as  not  to  represent  him  as  a  personal  Saviour, 
but  as  a  power  by  which  men  are  delivered  from  sin,  and  this 
without  any  proper  recognition  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  his  work.3 
As  philosophical  pantheism  affirms  the  identity  of  subjective  and 
objective  so  that  the  objective  derives  its  seeming  validity  from 
the  subjective,  so  theological  pantheism  affirms  in  some  form 
the  identity  of  the  divine  and  the  human,  so  that  the  human 
derives  its  seeming  validity  as  an  evolution  of  the  divine.  It  is 
true,  to  some  extent,  as  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  admits,  "  that 
the  present  movement  of  thought  seeks  to  find  the  union  of  ob- 
jective and  subjective  elements."4  But  it  should  be  observed  that 
as  the  boundary-line  which  in  truth  distinguishes  these  elements 
becomes  ill-defined  and  obliterated  in  this  quest  for  their  union, 
this  Andover  movement  of  thought  is  in  the  interest  of  panthe- 
ism.   Accordingly,  the  atonement  can  have  neither  vicarious  nor 

1  Dorner's  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  Ulv.  ii,  vol.  ii,  p.  149.  2  Ibid.  div.  ii, 
vol.  ii,  p.  161.     3  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  p.  162.      4 Prog.  Orth.  p.  62. 


34 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


substitutional  significance,  for  it  marks  the  union  of  two  parties 
so  as  to  form  one  party,  when  the  two  have  no  separate  existence 
such  as  to  furnish  the  necessary  conditions  upon  which  one  of 
them  can  be  vicarious  to  the  other.  In  this  case  the  parties,  in- 
stead of  being  at  one  morally  by  reconciliation,  are  at  one  by 
identity  of  nature  and  essence.  The  two  do  not  exist  individu- 
ally except  as  abstractions,  for  actually  there  is  but  one.  Thus, 
if,  as  Alford  says,  "  the  sacrifice  on  the  cross  was  the  offering 
up  of  Human  Nature  "  —  "the  entire  nature  of  mankind"  —  so 
that  "all  mankind  were  summed  up  in  it"  and  so  that  in  that 
offering  "  we  were  offered  up,"  —  that  is,  that  all  the  individuals 
of  the  race  were  offered,  —  then  it  could  not  have  been  said,  as 
now,  in  the  Scriptures  respecting  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  that"  His 
own  se//bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree"  ;  1  and  that 
"  we  are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
once  for  all."  2 

Equally  at  variance  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Seminary 
Creed  is  McLeod  Campbell's  theory  of  "  Sympathy,"  or  "  Identi- 
fication," which  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  approves.3  Campbell 
holds,  in  accord  with  a  theory  entitled  "  The  Philosophy  of 
Evangelicism,"  that  "  a  clear  avenue  is  opened  between  the  Christ 
consciousness  and  the  human  consciousness,  and  we  detect  in 
their  intercommunion  the  accord  of  the  atoning  act  and  the  be- 
lieving act.  Our  Saviour,  conscious  of  our  sins,  has  taken  them 
upon  himself  and  atoned  for  them  ;  we,  conscious  of  his  righteous- 
ness, appear  with  it  in  the  sight  of  God  and  are  justified.  Our 
sins  are  his  sins  ;  his  righteousuess  is  our  righteousness  ;  and  this 
union  of  Christ  and  his  people  in  moral  consciousness  is  the 
central  idea  of  the  gospel."  Thus,  by  entering  into  the  sins  of 
men,  or  making  them  his  own,  Christ  may  be  held  to  have  atoned 
for  them,  says  Campbell,  by  offering  up  to  God  a  perfect  con- 
fession, and  an  adequate  repentance  for  them,  with  which  divine 
justice  is  satisfied,  aud  a  full  expiation  is  made  of  human  guilt. 
This  perfect  confession  of  these  sins  which  must  in  its  own  nature 
have  been  a  perfect  '•'Amen"  in  humanity  to  the  judgment  of 
God  on  the  sin  of  man  ;  "  as  meeting  the  divine  wrath  against 
sin  with  a  perfect  response  out  of  the  depths  of  his  [Christ's] 
divine  humanity  —  is  a  response  which  [excepting  the  personal 

>1  Pet.  2:24.      2Heb.  10:10.      3  Prog.  Orth.  p.  54. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint.  35 


consciousness  of  sin]  has  all  the  elements  of  a  perfect  contrition 
and  repentance."  But,  in  so  far,  how  can  this  be  called  "  a  per- 
fect confession  and  adequate  repentance  "  for  sin,  while  it  lacks 
the  "  personal  consciousness  of  sin"?  In  defending  this  use  of 
the  word  "  repentance,"  Campbell  says  that  this  word  "  repent- 
ance will  have  its  full  meaning  in  the  personal  experience  of 
every  one  who  accepts  in  faith  the  atonement  as  now  repre- 
sented ;  for  every  such  individual  sinner  will  add  the  excepted 
element  of  personal  consciousness  of  sin."  But,  in  the  words  of 
another,  "  this  attempted  explanation  increases  the  difficulty. 
It  supposes  a  twofold  interchange  or  combination  of  penitential 
elements  as  taking  place  between  sinners  and  their  Saviour. 
On  the  one  hand  that  which  is  lacking  in  the  repentance  of  sin- 
ners, in  order  to  make  it  '  a  full  response  to  the  righteous  judg- 
ment of  God  on  the  sins  of  men,'  is  held  to  be  supplied  by  the 
'  adequate  sorrow  and  contrition  with  which  Christ  makes  perfect 
confession  of  sin  on  their  behalf.'  On  the  other  hand,  that  which 
is  lacking  in  the  Saviour's  confession  of  the  sins  of  men,  in  order 
to  give  it  '  all  the  elements  of  a  perfect  contrition  and  repentance 
on  account  of  them,'  is  held  to  be  supplied  by  '  the  personal  con- 
sciousness of  sin  on  the  part  of  every  individual  sinner  who  in 
faith  accepts  the  atonement.'  But  surely,  repentance,  accord- 
ing to  any  reasonable  or  scriptural  notion  we  can  form  of  it,  is 
the  act  or  exercise  of  one  individual  person,  namely,  of  the  sin- 
ner himself,  who  has  done  the  things  repented  of.  And  it  seems 
utterly  impossible  to  conceive  of  it  as  a  combination  of  the  feel- 
ings and  dispositions  of  two  or  more  individuals,  whose  personal 
feelings  are  so  fused  and  blended  together  that  each  contributes 
to  it  his  own  quota  of  its  essential  elements."  1  It  may  be  truly 
affirmed  that  no  one  can  conceive  of  such  "  a  combination  "  from 
the  standpoint  of  Christian  theism.  It  is  a  combination  assumed 
upon  the  identity  of  the  divine  with  humanity  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  involves  the  inconsistency  of  referring  to  the  divine 
and  human  as  separate  individualities,  after  they  have  been  re- 
solved into  pantheistic  unity. 

What  is  here  said  of  the  theory  of  Campbell  applies  as  well  to 
the  theory  maintained  by  the  professorial  authors  of  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy."  This  appears  in  the  acceptance  of  Campbell's  theory, 

1  Crawford  on  the  Atonement,  pp.  327,328. 


36  Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


as  well  as  in  the  quotations  already  made.  Again,  while  a  uni- 
versal atonement  is  affirmed  in  both  theories,  yet  in  fact  only  a 
limited  atonement  can  be  consistently  maintained  in  either  theory, 
without  assuming  the  final  salvation  of  all  men.  When  Campbell, 
in  order  to  the  completeness  of  the  atonement,  in  vindicating  his 
use  of  the  word  "repentance"  as  applied  to  the  confession  of 
the  sins  of  humanity  by  Jesus  Christ,  represents  that  the  element 
of  "  personal  consciousuess  of  sin,"  excepted  from  Christ's  con- 
trition and  repentance,  is  an  element  which  every  individual  sin- 
ner "  will  add  "who  accepts  in  faith  the  atonement,  it  amounts 
to  this  :  that  for  the  lack  of  this  "  excepted  element"  there  is  no 
real  atonement  for  any  but  "  those  who  accept  it  in  faith."  Thus 
far  theu,  in  fact,  the  atonement  is  limited  to  the  number  "who 
accept  it  in  faith."  That  the  atonement  is  sufficient  for  all,  that 
what  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  one  man  is  necessary 
for  the  salvation  of  another,  and  for  all,  is  admitted  by  those 
who  hold  that  the  atonement  is  limited.  "The  righteousness 
of  Christ,  therefore,  consisting  in  the  obedience  and  death 
demanded  under  the  law  under  which  all  men  are  placed,  is 
adapted  to  all  men.  It  is  also  of  infinite  value,  being  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  sufficient 
for  all."1  But  only  those  will  be  saved  who  believe.  It  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  that  no  man  perishes  for  want  of  an 
atonement.  In  this  respect,  then,  the  atonement  as  represented 
by  Campbell  is  no  more  universal  than  is  the  atonement  as  repre- 
sented at  Princeton  and  Dort.  In  either  there  is  in  reality  no 
atonement  for  any  but  such  as  "  accept  it  in  faith."  So,  in  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy,"  the  same  thiug  is  implied,  if  not  expressed 
in  so  many  words.  It  is  not  claimed  that  all  will  believe.  It  is 
said  that  the  Christian  life  is  "  all  expressed  in  the  personal  act 
of  repentance  toward  God,  and  of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."2  It  is  admitted  that  there  are  those  who  will  not  exer- 
cise this  "  repentance"  and  "  faith,"  for  in  speaking  of  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  it  is  said,  "  We  do  not  affirm  that  his  work  is 
irresistible.  Man  is  his  own  master  under  Christianity  as  with- 
out."3 "  Everlasting  destiny  is  determined  for  every  person  by 
his  acceptance  or  rejection  of  Christ."4 

1  Princeton  Essays,  1st  series,  p.  350.  2  Prog.  Orth.  p.  143.  3  Ibid.  p.  11$. 

4  Ibid.  p.  243. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


37 


It  should  be  observed  here  that  the  atonement  in  this  regard  is 
not  modified  by  any  reference  to  election  or  decrees  as  to  who 
shall  be  saved  by  it,  for  election  and  decrees  must  be  viewed  as 
pertaining  to  the  divine  omniscience,  by  which  all  events,  past  or 
future,  are  seen  by  God  as  ever  present  in  his  sight,  above  what 
are  now  to  man  the  relations  of  time  ;  so  that  God  no  more  elects 
and  decrees  from  all  eternity  than  to  all  eternity,  and  because  that 
he  is  ever  the  same,  immutable.  That  God  knows,  therefore,  from 
all  eternity  who  will  reject  Christ,  before  they  reject  him,  as  he 
knows  this  to  all  eternity  after  they  reject  him,  furnishes  no  em- 
barrassment to  their  acceptance  of  Christ.  Therefore  the  claim 
made  by  both  of  these  theories  to  great  progress  in  theology  in 
maintaining  a  universal  atonement  has  in  fact  no  foundation,  as 
considered  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian  theism.  From  the 
standpoint  of  pantheism  it  is  otherwise.  Here  atonement  stands 
for  the  evolution  in  the  human  race  of  Him  who  is  identified  with 
the  race  by  Incarnation.  Man,  being  a  God-man,  at  first  as  an 
emanation  from  God  and  pursuant  to  that  kind  of  divine  imma- 
nence which  emanation  requires ;  the  Incarnation  follows  as  a 
reinforcement  of  the  divine  in  man  such  as  to  give  a  sure  pro- 
pulsion to  that  evolution  which  promises  at  last  the  entire  absorp- 
tion of  every  individual  of  the  race  into  the  Divine.  In  this 
view,  sin  is  a  negation,  and  marks  the  starting-point  of  evolution, 
indicating  the  want  of  those  attainments  which  are  to  be  secured 
by  subsequent  development.  Instead  of  sin  to  be  atoned  for, 
there  is  only  attainment  to  be  made  by  evolution.  Instead  of 
the  atonement  vicarious,  there  is  an  atonement  evolutionary ;  an 
"atonement  universal,  absolute."  "The  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment resides  in  the  personality  of  Christ."  "He  is  the  Uni- 
versal Person,"  identified  with  humanity,  so  that  his  divinity  is 
in  nothing  more  clearly  shown  than  in  his  perfect  humanity  — 
the  universal  man  —  so  that  when  Christ  suffers  the  race  suffers. 
Thus  Christ  is  the  life  of  humanity.  Thus  it  is  not  what  Christ 
does  so  much  as  what  he  is  in  humanity  —  its  life  —  his  Person 
transfused  into  humanity  so  as  finally  to  conform  all  the  race 
wholly  and  essentially  to  himself.  This  is  the  conclusion  to 
which  the  most,  if  not  all,  have  come  who  have  accepted  consist- 
ently the  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  the  divine  with  humanity  in 
the  Incarnation,  from  the  time  of  John  of  Damascus,  who  in  the 


38 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


eighth  century  drew  up  his  doctrinal  textbook  composed  chiefly 
of  the  expressions  of  the  older  Fathers  of  the  Greek  Church.1 
Thus,  Maurice  was  consistent  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  future 
endless  punishment,  and  in  affirming  that  all  men  are  adopted  as 
the  Sons  of  God  through  their  identity  with  Christ,  so  that  the 
only  function  of  faith  is  that  by  it  men  at  some  time,  in  this  or 
the  future  life,  come  to  discern  their  identity  with  the  Son  of  God 
as  a  fact  that  had  all  along  been  established. 

So  John  Murray  he.d  "  the  universality  of  Christ's  headship  in 
the  human  race  ;  a  universal  atonement  made  by  Christ  in  organic 
and  vital  union  with  every  man,"  and  from  these  universalities 
was  consistent  in  affirming  universal  salvation.  Hence  the  in- 
consistency of  the  Andover  professors  that,  while  holding  this 
doctrine  of  incarnation  and  atonement,  they  admit  the  possibility 
that  some  of  the  human  race  should  finally  be  miserable :  for  this 
admission  —  as  Occam  said  of  this  Christology  in  the  fourteenth 
century  —  implies  that  something  of  Christ  will  be  finally  miserable 
because  cf  his  identity  with  humanity.  If  Judas,  the  betrayer, 
went  to  his  own  place  to  be  forever  miserable,  then  something  of 
Christ,  the  Betrayed,  must  go  to  be  forever  miserable  on  account 
of  his  identity  with  the  nature  of  the  betrayer.2  To  avoid  this 
consequence  of  this  Christology  in  case  any  of  the  human  race 
should  fail  "to  accept"  of  Christ,  it  must  be  affirmed  that  all 
will  finally  accept  of  Christ.  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  in- 
consistent because  it  does  not  so  affirm,  and  so  plant  itself  un- 
hesitatingly on  the  basis  of  pantheistic  uuiversalism. 

Again,  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  claims  to  have  broken  up  the 
narrowness  of  the  scheme  incident  to  what  it  calls  "  arbitrary 
election"  by  insisting  on  "  Universal  Atonement."  It  says,  "  If 
we  start  within  the  limitations  of  an  arbitrary  election,  we  have  a 
limited  atonement  and  limited  work  of  the  Spirit."  3  But  if  by 
"arbitrary  election  "  it  is  implied  that  God  knew  from  all  eternity 
in  his  own  mind  and  thought  that  some  would  be  saved,  and  that 
others  would  not  be  saved,  involving  all  the  consequences  direct 
and  contingent,  then  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  must,  to  be 
consistent,  affirm  this  "  arbitrary  election,"  unless  it  can  affirm 

1  De  Fide  Orth.  lib.  iii.  c.  ti.  2 Item  sequiter  quod  aliquid  de  essentia  Christi  erit 
mlserum  et  damnatuin,  quia  ilia  natura  communis  existens  realiter  in  Christo  et  in 
damnato  erit  damuatum,  quia  in  Juda.  — Occam,  Logica,  P.  I.  c.  15.  3  Prog.  Orth. 
p.  11U. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


39 


that  God  from  all  eternity  knew  in  his  own  mind  and  thought  that 
all  of  the  human  race  would  be  finally  saved.  The  divine  fore- 
knowledge seems  to  be  admitted.  It  is  said  that  "  Humanity 
with  Christ  in  it  is  propitiated  to  the  divine  thought  from  all 
eternity.  It  was  in  the  divine  purpose  from  eternity  that  there 
should  be  incarnation  and  atonement."  1  Whatever  may  be  said 
then  from  the  historical  poiut  of  view,  as  though  God's  disposi- 
tion was  apparently  "  changed  when  Christ  suffered  and  died," 
yet  in  reality,  as  known  to  himself,  God's  disposition  had  been 
the  same  from  all  eternity.  Now  if  it  be  admitted,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  "  humanity  with  Christ  in  it  is  propitiated  to  the 
divine  thought  from  all  eternity  "  so  that  "  it  was  in  the  divine 
purpose  from  all  eternity  that  there  should  be  incarnation  and 
atonement,"  that  some  of  the  race  will  be  finally  lost  because 
they  do  not  accept  of  Christ,  then  it  is  certain  that  in  the  "divine 
thought"  and  "  purpose  "  there  is  an  election  from  all  eternity  of 
those  that  are  saved.  Thus  "Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  is  com- 
mitted to  this  election  and  to  a  limited  atonement  as  relates  to 
the  thought  and  purpose  of  God  in  his  omniscience,  and  as 
relates  to  the  final  result ;  while  the  claim  that  "  God's  disposition 
was  changed  when  Christ  suffered  and  died  "  rests  on  the  histori- 
cal seeming  of  things,  as  in  nature  the  sun  seems  to  rise  when 
really  it  does  not  change  its  position.  This  seeming,  taken  by 
itself  alone,  has  no  place,  certainly,  in  "  real  theology." 

If,  to  escape  this  conclusion  respecting  election,  the  Arminian 
view  is  taken,  which  admits  foreknowledge  but  denies  foreordina- 
tion  ;  then  it  will  appear  that  the  ordination  of  things,  instead  of 
being  concurrent  in  the  divine  mind  with  the  certainty  of  fore- 
knowledge, is  reached  only  by  a  process  of  evolution  in  the  divine 
thought  and  will  corresponding  to  the  temporal  evolution  of  events. 
But  this  evolution  in  the  Infinite  is  a  doctrine  of  pantheism. 

Or,  if  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  will  carry  out  the  implications 
of  its  pantheistic  Christology  without  wavering,  so  as  to  affirm  the 
final  salvation  of  all  men,  then  it  will  consistently  oppose  what  it 
calls  the  limitations  of  an  "  arbitrary  election,"  while  it  affirms  a 
universal  atonement.  This  consistency,  however,  carries  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy  "  beyond  the  sphere  of  Christian  theism  into 
pantheistic  evolution. 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  61. 


4<) 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


Thus  the  Universal  Atonement  claimed  by  the  Andover  Pro- 
fessors differs  essentially  from  the  "General  Atonement"  of 
Christian  theism  which  is  expressed  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary 
in  the  words,  "  The  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  by  His  suffering 
and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men."  Through 
the  General  Atonement,  on  the  basis  of  Christian  theism,  there 
is  a  sufficiency  of  grace  for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  but  not  in 
such  a  way  as  to  imply  that  all  men  will  be  saved.  But  through 
the  Universal  Atonement  according  to  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
on  the  basis  of  pantheistic  Christology,  in  order  to  logical  con- 
sistency the  final  salvation  of  all  men  must  be  affirmed  as  a 
necessity. 

Thus  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  by  its  pantheistic  Christology, 
in  pursuance  of  its  physical  and  metaphysical  philosophy,  by  fair 
inference  neutralizes  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  atonement  as 
taught  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary. 

V.  In  the  fifth  place,  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  evinces  its  sym- 
pathy with  pantheism  in  its  treatment  of  the  Scriptures.  It  does 
not  regard  the  Scriptures  as  revelation  in  the  highest  sense,  nor 
in  any  sense  as  a  permanent  and  "  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice "  for  all  time.  They  served  as  revelation  to  the  Jews 
until  the  Incarnation,  and  as  a  record  of  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  Church.  They  contain  also  many  things  which  will 
always  remain  of  great  value  to  the  Church  as  truth  pertaining 
to  its  origin,  so  that,  for  example, 

"  the  views  of  Christ  and  of  his  truth  contained  in  the  apostolic  Epis- 
tles must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  always  shape  the  religious  and 
moral  conceptions  of  the  church.  Not  that  they  alone  possessed  the 
Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation.  He  is  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  rev- 
elation in  every  soul  in  which  he  dwells,  and  there  have  been  some  souls 
in  ages  since  the  apostolic  into  which  He  has  so  abundantly  shed  the 
radiance  of  God's  truth  that  they  have  been  the  spiritual  luminaries  of 
their  own  and  following  centuries."  1  "  Christ  is  not  only  the  earthly 
culmination,  but  also  the  eternal  source  and  principle,  of  revelation." 2 
"The  whole  truth,  then,  is  that  Christ  is  the  revealing  or  manifesting 
principle;"3  "The  Incarnation  is  the  essential  revelation:  but  the  In- 
carnation is  more  than  the  presence  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus  on  earth, 
and  the  things  he  did  and  suffered.  —  It  is  the  fact  of  the  union  between 
the  divine  and  the  human,  the  awful  '  mystery  of  godliness';  it  is  the 
relation  of  this  union  to  the  life  of  man  and  the  life  of  God." 4 

>  Prog.  Orth.  p.  209.      Ubid.  p.  34.      'Ibid.  p.  43.      « Ibid.  p.  205. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


41 


Christ,  then,  as  one  with  the  human  race  in  idea  from  the  first, 
and  in  reality  through  the  Incarnation,  He  is  the  highest  revela- 
tion in  being  subjective  revelation  in  man.  In  comparison  with 
this  revelation  from  the  life  of  Christ  subjective  within  man,  the 
objective  revelation  contained  in  the  Scriptures  is  of  small  ac- 
count. They  are  of  some  value  taken  simply  as  history,  as  a 
record  of  events,  and  as  related  to  those  events  at  the  time  of 
their  occurrence.  But  these  Scriptures  cannot  be  taken  as 
authority  for  all  time,  and  because  that, 

The  church  is  ever  adding  to  its  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  the  exe- 
getical  process  is  certainly  not  the  exclusive  means  of  making  the 
increment.1 

Instead  of  regarding  the  Scriptures  as  a  Supernatural  revela- 
tion communicated  by  the  Spirit,  and  under  the  light  of  the  Spirit 
in  their  application  as  the  only  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  for  all  time ;  it  is  held  that  it  was 

God's  purpose  to  make  this  theanthropic  Person  the  center  of  the 
divine  revelation  to  man.2 

It  is  not  a  creed,  however  truly  representing  the  Scriptures 
themselves,  nor  their  content,  nor  indeed  what  Christ  himself  did 
or  said  while  on  earth :  but  it  is  the  life  of  Christ  in  the  race, 
which  is  revelation.  Thus  by  the  evolution  of  the  life  of  Christ 
within  humanity  —  of  Christ  as  one  with  the  race  —  revelation  is 
continuous  and  progressive  through  all  time,  so  that  the  Church  is 
ever  adding  to  its  knowledge  of  Christ,  as  it  could  not  do  by 
applying  the  exegetieal  process  to  the  Scriptures  under  the  light 
and  efficiency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  evolution  of  revelation  is 
what  Pantheism  requires.  It  knows  nothing  of  inspiration  as  re- 
quired by  Christian  theism,  and  canuot  use  the  word  intelligently 
since  it  requires  the  dualism  of  the  individual  Personal  God  to 
inspire,  and  man  as  an  individual  person  to  be  inspired.  Hence 
Pantheism  in  all  its  forms  has  sought  to  impair  the  authority  of 
the  Bible. 

It  may  be  said  that  there  are  passages  in  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  irreconcilable  with  this  pantheistic  interpretation.  These 
passages,  however,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  main  drift  of 
thought.    They  appear  as  inconsistencies  and  self-contradictions. 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  212.      a  Ibid.  p.  233. 


42 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


On  this  account  it  has  been  well  said  that  the  Andover  Authors 
of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  "take  back  with  one  hand  what 
they  give  with  the  other."  1  Thus  it  happens,  in  some  instances, 
that  what  is  affirmed  in  one  place  is  denied,  or  its  meaning 
changed,  in  another  place.  There  is  a  lack  of  clear  definition. 
There  are  instances  in  which  a  thing  is  defined,  as  though  a  heav- 
enly body  should  be  called  a  planet,  and  yet  not  so  much  a  planet 
but  that  it  might  be  a  comet.  When  this  peculiarity  of  style  is 
duly  considered,  it  must  go  far  to  exonerate  from  blame  the 
most,  if  not  all,  of  the  quotations  from  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
alleged  to  be  unfair  by  its  Authors.  In  explanation  of  this  style 
by  one  of  the  Editors  of  The  Andover  Review,  it  is  said  that 

Much  of  the  phraseology  in  discussion  was  used  to  make  immediate 
connexion  with  existing  doctrines,  which  it  was  desired  to  supplement 
or  apply.2 

The  aim  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  was  declared  to  be  the 
endeavor  to  Christianize  or 
Christologize  the  doctrines  passed  in  review. 

According  to  this,  it  would  seem  that  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Incarnation  the  aim  was  to  "  Christologize  "  that  doctrine  which, 
according  to  the  Andover  Creed,  affirms  that  Christ  "  continues  to 
be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  forever." 
But  because  this  aim  could  not  be  accomplished,  since  the  panthe- 
istic Christology  of  ' '  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  could  not  be  made 
to  connect  with  the  Christology  of  Christian  theism  in  the  Andover 
Creed,  nor  be  attached  to  it  as  a  "  supplement,"  or  as  a  form  of 
"  application,"  the  inevitable  result  was  that,  however  carefully 
phrased,  the  language  which  seemingly  accepted  the  existing 
Christology  of  the  Andover  Creed,  would  not  harmonize  with  the 
language  affirming  the  pantheistic  Christology.  This  professorial 
Editor  says  that 

The  immanence  of  Christ  is  an  integral  part  of  the  conception  of  the 
divine  immanence.    It  belongs  to  the  Christian  idea  of  God. 

This  certainly  is  a  plain  statement.  Since  by  "divine  imma- 
nence "  the  Greek  immanence  is  meant,  and  since  the  immanence 

1  Criticisms  on  the  Andover  Movement,  by  Rev.  F.  Palmer,  in  The  Andover  Review, 
vol.  xiii,  p.  181.      2  Andover  Review,  vol.  xiii,  p.  434. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


43 


of  Christ  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Greek  immanence,  it  requires 
that  the  Christian  theism  of  the  Andover  Creed  shall  be  super- 
seded by  Pantheism,  in  order  that  it  may  be  Christianized,  and  so 
bring  forth  from  previous  obscurity  "  the  Christian  idea  of  God." 
It  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  this  st}Tle  of  taking  back  with  one 
hand  what  had  been  given  by  the  other,  that  it  arose  from  the 
attempt  to  harmonize  things  which  were  essentially  foreign  to 
each  other ;  such  as  the  Seminary  Creed  and  the  New  theology. 
The  position  of  the  Authors  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  in  this 
respect  not  altogether  unlike  that  of  Clement  and  Origen  when 
they  could  not  withstand  the  pantheistic  tendency  of  the  Alexan- 
drian School  by  any  use  of  language  they  might  employ  in  the 
interest  of  Christian  theism,  which  might  seem  to  imply  the  per- 
sonality of  God,  and  because  that,  on  the  whole,  this  personality 
both  of  God  and  the  Logos  must  be  regarded  as  Ideal  rather  than 
Real,  according  to  their  presentation.  Thus  admitting  all  that 
ever  has  been  claimed  by  the  appreciative  historian  respecting  the 
piety,  sincerity,  and  industry  of  these  Fathers,  it  only  shows  that 
these  qualities,  dominated  by  a  pagan  philosophy,  can  never  con- 
serve Christianity. 

Again,  there  is  a  logical  inconsistency  in  maintaining,  as  the 
Andover  professors  do,  that  a  probation  for  some  after  death  is 
held  only  as  an  hypothesis.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  from 
the  premises  involved  in  the  pantheistic  incarnation  and  atone- 
ment, the  final  salvation  of  all  men  is  a  logical  necessity.  The 
Authors  may  refuse  to  draw  this  logical  inference,  but  their  pupils 
and  others  will  draw  this  inference  if  they  do  not,  for  it  is  con- 
tained in  the  premises.  All  men  have  Christ  in  them  by  constitu- 
tion, who  is  the  supreme  revelation,  so  that  in  order  to  their  con- 
scious knowledge  of  Christ  it  is  only  necessary  that  there  should 
be  an  evolution  of  the  Christ  already  constituted  in  them,  which 
is  certain  to  proceed  either  here  or  hereafter,  since  it  is  not  con- 
ditioned upon  faith,  or  anything  that  man  can  do,  as  Maurice 
consistently  presents  the  doctrine. 

It  is  said  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  that 

we  may  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  would  not  be  just  for  God  to  con- 
demn men  hopelessly  when  they  have  not  known  him  as  he  really  is, 
when  they  have  not  known  him  in  Jesus  Christ.1 

ip.64. 


44 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


And  in  the  Andover  Defence,  as  representing  the  absurdity  of 
supposing  that  infants  who  die  in  infancy  can  know  Christ,  it  is 
said  :  — 

That  is,  they  experience  in  this  life  "  conviction  of  sin,  enlightenment 
in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  renewal  of  will,  the  Spirit's  persuasion,  and 
power  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  freely  offered  in  the  Gospel,  pardon  and 
acceptance  as  righteous  in  God's  sight,  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness which  is  received  by  faith  alone,  reception  into  the  number 
and  admission  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  sons  of  God,  ability  more  and 
more  to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  righteousness,  assurance  of  God's 
love,  peace  of  conscience,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  increase  of  grace  and 
perseverance  therein  to  the  end."  Blessed  infants!  But  who  in  his 
senses  can  think  of  putting  an  interpretation  on  this  article  which  com- 
mits it  to  such  absurdities? 1 

Yes;  and  also  "who  in  his  senses"  can  claim  all  this  attain- 
ment and  knowledge  of  Christ  as  necessary  for  every  adult  in 
order  that  he  may  be  said  to  have  a  Christian  probation  iu  this 
life,  to  say  nothing  of  infants!  The  "  benefits  "  enumerated  in 
the  Shorter  Catechism  are  evideutly  given  as  a  complete  summary 
of  the  highest  attainment  of  the  elect  iu  this  life,  but  the  attain- 
ment of  the  highest  does  not  go  to  prove  that  a  lesser  degree  of 
attainment  may  not  constitute  a  genuine  probation  iu  this  life. 
Calvin  says  in  a  letter  to  Servetus  :  "I  do  not  doubt  that  when 
God  removes  infants  from  the  world,  they  are  regenerated  by  the 
secret  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit."2  The  infant  so  regene- 
rated certainly  has  a  Christian  probation  in  this  life,  and  requires 
no  other,  being  renewed  by  the  Spirit  whom  Christ  sent  into  the 
world.  As  in  a  nursery  a  graft  may  be  inserted  into  a  small 
shoot  and  then  be  shortly  removed  to  the  permanent  garden,  or 
the  graft  may  be  set  in  the  larger  tree  and  be  transplanted  later 
under  different  conditions  and  environment ;  so  the  infant  may  be 
renewed  by  the  setting  of  the  new  life  in  its  soul  and  then  be 
removed  at  once  to  the  everlasting  gardens,  while  in  the  case  of 
an  adult  the  renewal  may  take  place  under  an  operation  of  the 
Spirit  better  known.  But  in  either  case  there  are  no  data  for 
determining  the  exact  measure  of  what  constitutes  a  Christian 
probation,  so  that  it  may  be  said  of  those  supposed  to  have  this 
measure  that  they  have  a  Christian  probation,  and  that  those  who 
fall  short  of  this  measure  though  in  the  smallest  particular  do  not 

1  The  Auilover  Defence,  p.  13S.      2  Bib.  Sac.  vol.  iii,  p.  59. 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint.  45 


have  a  Christian  probation.  The  fact  of  having  a  probation  can- 
not be  established,  quantitively,  in  this  way. 

It  is  related  that  in  India  a  poor  man  who  had  never  heard  of 
Christianity,  and  had  long  sought  in  vain  for  relief  from  his  con- 
victions of  sin  by  all  forms  of  penance,  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  must  be  some  Being  who  could  be  merciful  to  sinners. 
He  resolved  to  trust  in  that  nameless  One  of  his  thought,  and 
from  that  moment  found  peace.  Years  after  while  on  a  journey 
he  came  upon  a  group  listening  to  a  missionary  who  was  talking 
about  Jesus.  While  listening,  the  man  exclaimed:  "Why,  this 
Jesus  is  the  One  I  have  been  trusting,  who  has  given  me  peace. 
I  did  not  know  his  name,  but  he  is  my  deliverer  from  sin."  Prob- 
ably no  one  would  say  that  if  this  man  had  died  before  hearing 
the  missionary  he  could  not  have  been  saved :  or  that  in  that 
case  he  did  not  have  a  sufficient  Christian  probation,  for  he  was 
already  a  man  of  faith,  though,  historically,  he  knew  not  the  name 
of  him  in  whom  he  believed.  There  may  have  been  many  such 
benighted  minds,  who  have  under  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
found  the  relief  of  faith.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  in 
"convincing  the  world  of  sin  "  the  Holy  Spirit  has  done  consid- 
erable genuine  missionary  work  in  regions  where  the  voice  of  the 
human  preacher  of  the  gospel  has  never  been  heard.  So  long 
as  there  are  any  facts  indicating  that  this  may  be  the  case,  and 
so  long  as  the  contrary  cannot  be  shown,  there  is  no  ground  for 
the  assumption  that  a  present  probation  does  not  furnish  sufficient 
opportunity.  Besides,  the  deeper  fallacy  of  this  assumption  con- 
sists in  supposing  that  a  sufficient  probation  must,  in  order  to 
meet  the  demands  of  equity,  furnish  an  equal  opportunity  to 
every  individual,  and  thus  carry  to  every  one  the  entire  order  of 
salvation  begun  and  carried  on.  Such  a  probation  according  to 
the  proposed  equity  must  require  the  scheme  of  salvation  to  be 
communicated  to  every  person  with  an  equal  measure  of  informa- 
tion, intelligence,  argument,  and  with  equal  measure  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  also  that  every  person  should  have  in  himself  the 
same  equal  measure  with  all  others  of  mental  capacity  to  under- 
stand, of  conscience  so  as  to  be  susceptible  of  conviction  of  sin, 
with  the  same  measure  of  time  for  consideration  and  reflexion  ; 
in  short,  in  order  to  this  equitable  and  therefore  fair  probation  it 
must  be  such  that  no  one  can  claim  that  another  has  had  a  better 


46 


Argument  on  TJurteenth  Complaint. 


or  different  opportunity  than  himself  in  any  respect.  But  such 
an  equitable  probation,  or  fair  chance,  is  impossible  in  the  present 
varying  outward  conditions  of  human  life  with  the  different  de- 
grees of  native  human  knowledge,  moral  faculty,  and  culture. 
Nor  does  the  power  to  define  what  is  called  an  equitable  proba- 
tion, fair  chance,  or  opportunity,  come  within  the  scope  of  human 
judgment,  hence  any  question  that  may  be  raised  in  respect  to 
determining  it  is  only  idle  dreaming.  Furthermore  this  attempt 
to  define  Christian  probation  quantitively,  aud  to  fix  it  within 
mere  historical  limitations,  would  require  the  Scripture  to  say 
that  Christ  and  the  Spirit,  to  carry  on  their  work,  came  into  what 
is  technically  called  Christendom,  whereas  it  is  said  that  Christ 
and  the  Spirit  came  "into  the  world."  It  is  to  the  credit  of 
Calvinism  that  it  does  not  presume  to  define  probation  quanti- 
tively, or  otherwise  than  to  represent  it  as  had  in  this  life,  and 
further  than  that  leaving  it  to  Him  who  worketh  where  and  when 
and  how  he  will. 

Again,  any  attempt  to  define  probation  is  logically  repugnant 
to  the  evolution  maintained  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  For 
when  once  evolutiou  has  a  starting  point,  a  terminus  a  quo,  thence 
onward  it  is  an  infinite  progression,  and  that  is  all  that  can  be 
said  of  it.  Its  only  relation  or  measure  is  its  relation  to  the 
iufinite,  and  in  that  its  every  movement  is  described.  In  the 
Northern  Mythology  evolution  is  symbolized  under  the  tree 
Ygdrasil,  whose  roots  fastened  in  the  deepest  bottom  ground  of 
the  universe  send  up  its  branches  from  sphere  to  sphere,  arching 
over  each  in  succession  in  new-formed  trunk,  thus  by  trunk  and 
branch  ever  pushing  its  way  from  sphere  to  sphere  through  the 
illimitable  heavens.  So  evolution  in  the  New  theology  has  its 
terminus  a  quo,  or  root,  fastened  in  its  pantheistic  Christology, 
from  whence  the  race  starts  forth  in  its  unmeasured  course,  with- 
out check  or  reversal  by  any  hypothetical  probation  or  failure. 
It  is  difficult  to  conceive  why  such  an  hypothesis  should  be  men- 
tioned in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  except  upon  the  supposition 
of  an  attempt  to  connect  itself  with  a  Creed  with  which  it  was 
incompatible,  through  some  conjuring  with  the  word  probation. 

It  is  necessary  to  observe  here  that  the  objection  is  raised 
against  any  and  all  arguments  drawn  from  the  book  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy"  in  support  of  the  "Amended  Complaint":  that 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint.  47 


they  must  be  irrelevant  because  the  book  is  a  thing  of  the  past, 
and  therefore  the  Amended  Complaint  is  now  "stale."  But 
the  book,  in  respect  to  its  philosophy  and  its  theology  pursuant 
to  its  philosophy,  has  always  been  a  thing  of  the  past  and 
"stale."  It  appears  that  its  authors  and  advocates  have  always 
had  some  hesitation  about  calling  it  New.  In  their  uncertainty 
what  to  call  it,  they  represent  it  sometimes  as  New,  and  some- 
times as  a  return  to  Greek  theology,  and  sometimes  as  a  recovery 
of  something,  and  sometimes  as  something  respecting  which  men 
are  thiuking  as  men  never  thought  before.  But  whatever  it  be 
called,  the  pantheistic  elements  of  its  philosophy  date  back  to 
the  period  when  converts  to  Christianity  from  paganism  under- 
took to  graft  pagan  philosophy  upon  the  theology  of  the  Church, 
which,  as  Dr.  Emerson,  late  Brown  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  in  Andover  Seminary,  was  constrained  to  say  of  Origen, 
"  Contributed  prodigiously  to  swell  the  desolating  tide  that  over- 
whelmed the  Church  in  virtual  heathenism  for  a  thousand  years."  1 
The  elements  of  this  philosophy  appeared  in  the  De  Fide  of 
John  of  Damascus,  in  the  eighth  century  ;  again,  in  more  com- 
plete systematic  expression  by  Scotus  Erigena  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury ;  again,  in  the  revival  of  Greek  philosophy  in  the  twelfth 
century  under  the  influence  of  the  Arabians,  in  the  teaching  of 
Averroes  and  Alinaric.  This  philosophy  took  the  form  of  Mysti- 
cal Pantheism  under  Eckhart  in  the  fourteenth  century,  and  found 
expression  in  the  Theologica  Germanica  which  at  first  attracted 
the  attention  of  Luther,  but  from  whose  mysticism  he  was  dis- 
enchanted by  his  experience  with  the  Zwickau  prophets,  except 
that  in  his  doctrine  of  Consubstautiation  he  held  to  the  real  pres- 
ence of  Christ's  body  with  the  elements  of  the  Sacred  Supper. 
This  philosophy  was  revived  in  the  pantheistic  system  of  Spinoza, 
the  materials  for  which  had  been  furnished  largely  by  Giordano 
Bruno  from  his  studies  of  Greek  philosophy.  Thence  onward, 
this  philosophy  appears  tending  sometimes  more  to  physical 
methods,  and  at  other  times  more  to  metaphysical  methods,  in 
the  period  following  Kant,  until  in  the  nineteenth  century  it 
appears  in  greater  force  in  the  speculations  of  Schelling,  and 
reaches,  perhaps,  its  climax,  in  the  grandeur  of  system,  analysis, 
construction,  and  proportion,  as  exhibited  by  Hegel,  whence  the 

^ib.  Repos.,  1834,  p.  46. 


48 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


revival  of  the  pantheistic  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Immanence 
in  Greek  theology,  and  the  pantheistic  Christology  of  Schleier- 
macher,  and  others  in  Germany,  with  their  imitators  in  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States.  The  book  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  is  not  stale  merely  because  it  is  six  or  seven  years  since 
its  publication,  for  according  to  some  of  the  principles  which  it 
inculcates  it  is  more  than  two  thousand  years  old,  so  that  it 
inculcates  "  stale  "  error. 

The  reasons  upon  which  abatement  of  the  Complaints  concern- 
ing the  inculcation  of  these  principles  is  sought  are  equally  errone- 
ous aud  "  stale."  Gentlemen  come  covered  with  dust  from  the 
archives  of  English  Law,  pretending  to  briDg  authority  for  the 
details  of  the  administration  of  a  Trust  created  under  and  by 
the  authority  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts.  But  the  authority 
which  these  gentlemen  bring  has  as  little  to  do  with  the  regulation 
of  this  Trust  as  has  the  architecture  of  Noah's  Ark,  for  it  is 
brought  on  the  assumption  that  The  Audover  Seminary  with  its 
Trust  was  not  created,  complete,  solid,  independent,  sui  generis, 
and  as  though  its  methods  were  not  to  be  expounded  according 
to  the  genius  of  its  own  spirit,  and  as  though  Massachusetts  were 
incompetent  for  such  a  creation.  In  the  earlier  history  of  this 
country  this  assumption  finds  its  counterpart  in  the  sentiment  of 
Tories,  and  is  therefore  as  "  stale  "  as  it  is  un-American. 

But  after  all,  truth  is  older  than  error,  and  therefore  remains 
triumphant  after  whatever  repeated  assaults,  or  accumulations  of 
new  force,  error  may  put  in  array  against  it.  Hence  the  truth 
of  Christian  theism  as  formulated  by  Augustine  came  off  victori- 
ous against  all  the  assaults  of  Pantheism  down  to  the  Reforma- 
tion. Therefore  Calvinism  in  its  formulation  of  the  same  truth 
has  stood  impregnable  since  the  Reformation  before  every  panthe- 
istic assault.  It  has  stood  against  these  assaults  better  than 
Lutheranism  at  its  best,  as  Lutherans  themselves  agree,  and  be- 
cause that  Lutheranism  in  its  onesided  insistence  on  Christ  within 
us,  "  Christus  in  nobis,"  has  left  the  gate  open  for  the  subjective 
deceits  of  Pantheism  to  rush  in  and  take  possession  ;  while  Cal- 
vinism, insisting  fully  on  Christ  within  us  through  his  presence  in 
the  efficiency  of  Grace,  insists  at  the  same  time  just  as  fully  on 
Christ  outside  of  us  —  "Christus  pro  nobis"  —  the  Christ  ob- 
jective as  well  as  subjective,  "Christus  pro  nobis,"  as  well  as 


Argument  on  Thirteenth  Complaint. 


49 


"  Christus  in  nobis."  Thus  Calvinism  shuts  the  gate  of  its  fort- 
ress in  defence  of  the  Truth,  and  makes  it  impregnable  against 
all  the  subjective  conceits,  deceits,  and  insinuations  of  panthe- 
istic craft  of  attack.  Hence,  Dr.  Dorner,  though  unfavorable  to 
Calvinism,  nevertheless  declares  that  "the  system  of  Calvin  is 
preserved  from  Pantheism."  1 

Thus  Calvinism  has  stood  invincible  against  all  pantheistic 
Christologies,  and  pantheistic  doctrines  of  the  Divine  Immanence 
fabricated  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  or  as  recovered  from 
ancient  times,  as  the  Castle  of  Ehrenbreitstein  has  stood  upon 
the  Rhine  protecting  the  North  from  the  incursion  of  all  invading 
armies  from  the  South.  It  was  to  build  such  a  fortress  against 
error  that  the  Fathers  founded  this  Seminary,  and  stipulated  that 
every  professor  should  be  an  Orthodox  and  consistent  Calvinist. 
It  has  transpired  that,  contrary  to  this  purpose  of  the  Founders, 
doctrines  are  here  taught  incapable  of  agreement  with  consistent 
Calvinism,  however  they  may  be  represented  as  having  such  com- 
mon ground  with  Calvinism,  or  such  support  from  the  Creed  of 
the  Seminary,  as  to  be  only  a  natural  development  from  that 
Creed.  Evidence  for  this  is  found  in  the  book  entitled  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy,"  in  the  influence  which  it  continues  to  exert, 
which  could  hardly  be  more  adverse  to  the  teaching  required  in 
the  Seminary  if  it  were  formally  received  as  a  textbook,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  examinations  of  students  from  the  Seminary  for 
Licensure  and  Ordination. 

Therefore  in  concluding  my  argument  on  the  thirteenth  specifi- 
cation of  the  Amended  Complaint,  and  having,  as  I  believe,  sub- 
stantiated it,  I  must  affirm  that  the  respondent,  Professor  Egbert 
C.  Smyth,  d.d.,  in  having  composed  the  book,  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  and  in  being  responsible  for  it,  does  hold,  maintain, 
and  inculcate  "  that  a  system  of  physical  and  metaphysical 
philosophy  is  true  which  by  fair  inference  neutralizes  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  as  taught  in  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary." 

1  Dorner,  on  The  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii,  vol.  ill,  sec.  iii,  p.  9. 


ARGUMENT 

Maintaining  the  Twelfth  Charge  of  the 
Amended  Complaint. 


Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen,  —  There  is  another  specification 
in  the  amended  complaint,  in  support  of  which  I  will,  with  your 
permission,  present  some  arguments.  This  is  the  twelfth  specifi- 
cation, which  charges  that  the  Respondent, 

holds,  maintains,  and  inculcates  that  Christian  Missions  are  not  to  be 
supported  and  conducted  on  the  ground  that  men  who  know  not  Christ 
are  in  danger  of  perishing  forever,  and  must  perish  forever,  unless 
saved  in  this  life. 

This  twelfth  specification  is  taken  after  the  thirteenth  in  the 
order  of  argument,  because  the  logical  connexion  of  thought 
seems  to  require  it,  since  the  discussion  of  the  thirteenth  prepares 
the  way  for  the  discussion  of  the  twelfth,  and  saves  the  repeti- 
tion of  some  topics  which  would  otherwise  ensue. 

The  treatment  of  this  specification  requires  us  to  notice  the 
near  relation  of  the  Andover  Seminary  to  the  American  Board ; 
the  former  having  been  organized  and  opened  for  the  admission 
of  students  in  1808  ;  while  the  latter  was  organized  in  1810,  and 
sent  out  its  first  missionaries  in  1812.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
institution  of  the  Seminary  was  at  the  time  when  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  interesting  the  minds  of  graduates  from  different  colleges  in 
the  work  of  foreign  missions.  It  may  properly  be  said  that  these 
young  men  furnished  the  occasion  which  gave  rise  to  the  Board, 
but  it  should  also  be  said  that  the  idea  and  plan  of  the  Board 
arose  in  other  minds,  among  whom  it  seems  to  have  occurred  first 
to  Dr.  Worcester.  Thus,  simultaneously,  was  the  missionary 
spirit  kindled  in  the  hearts  of  the  young  men  and  in  the  hearts  of 
such  men  as  Worcester,  Spring,  Evarts,  and  the  Andover  profess- 
ors of  that  time.  When  on  his  deathbed  Dr.  Spring  was  asked 
what  portion  of  his  life  gave  him  the  most  pleasure  in  the  review, 

51 


52 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Comjilaint. 


he  replied  :  "  That  I  have  been  permitted  to  preach  the  Gospel ; 
that  I  have  been  enabled  to  preach  what  I  believe  to  be  the 
system  of  truth  :  and  that  I  have  been  the  unexpected  instrument 
of  establishing  the  Seminary  at  Andover."1  As  he  also  aided  in 
establishing  the  American  Board,  it  appears  that  the  two  institu- 
tions were  founded  pursuant  to  one  and  the  same  conception  of 
the  "  sj'stem  of  truth.'' 

Under  this  conception  it  was  not  strange  that  the  first  and  most 
important  element  which  pervaded  the  whole  policy  of  the  Ameri- 
can Board  was  "  a  transcendent  estimate  of  what  belongs  to 
Christianity  in  its  relations  to  a  future  life."2  In  this  estimate  it 
was  considered  as  an  imperative  necessity  that  "  essential  and 
spiritual  Christianity "  should  be  carried  to  heathen  nations  in 
order  to  their  salvation,  and  on  the  ground  that  the  only  proba- 
tion is  in  this  life,  and  that  all  who  are  not  saved  in  this  life  must 
perish  forever.  It  adds  force  to  this  estimate  that  the  doctrine  of 
uuiversalism  maintaining  the  final  salvation  of  all  men,  through  a 
post  mortem  probation  in  which  all  would  accept  of  salvation 
through  Christ,  or  be  purified  from  sin  by  punishment,  was  dili- 
gently proclaimed.  In  1770  John  Murray  came  from  England, 
thirty-eight  years  before  the  founding  of  Andover  Seminary,  and 
had  traveled  extensively  preaching  his  new  doctrine  of  univer- 
salism  which  in  its  essential  features  respecting  Christ's  headship 
of  the  race  does  not  differ  from  the  pantheistic  Christology  main- 
tained in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  by  the  present  Andover  pro- 
fessors. The  first  universalist  church  was  organized  in  this  coun- 
try by  Murray  in  Gloucester  in  1780,  twenty-eight  years  before  the 
founding  of  Andover  Seminary.  The  first  convention  of  univer- 
salist ministers  and  parishes  was  held  in  1785,  and  assent  to  what 
is  known  by  universalists  as  the  "  Winchester  Confession  of 
Faith"  was  given  and  the  confession  adopted  in  1803:  which 
was  but  five  years  preceding  the  founding  of  the  Seminary  at 
Andover.  Thus,  while  universalism  was  extensively  proclaimed, 
and  more  especially  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Murray ;  in 
opposition  to  Murray's  doctrine,  the  doctrine  of  this  life  as  the 
only  probation  was  placed  in  the  Seminary  Creed  and  in  the  foun- 
dation of  the  American  Board. 

1  Half-century  Memorial  Volume,  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  p.  112. 
2 Ibid.  Dr.  Hopkins's  Discourse. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


53 


It  is  important  to  observe  here  that  interest  in  missions  has 
been  effective  only  upon  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  present 
life  as  the  only  probation.  Whatever  may  have  been  said  ad- 
versely to  Calvinism  as-  to  promoting  missions,  or  quoted  as 
adverse  to  missions  from  any  claiming  to  be  Calvinists,  it  is 
nevertheless  true  that  missions  are  indebted  to  Calvinism  for  the 
conception  that  organizes  them,  and  the  nerve  that  sustains  them. 
It  was  under  the  auspices  of  the  Calvinistic  Baptists  that  Carey 
became  impressed  with  the  duty  of  giving  the  Gospel  to  the 
heathen,  and  under  whom  he  was  sustained  in  his  ever  memor- 
able work  of  founding  the  Baptist  mission  at  Serampore.  It  is 
also  significant  that  the  Baptist  historian  accounts  for  the  decline 
in  numbers  of  the  Baptists  in  Holland  because  of  "  the  spread  of 
Socinian  doctrines  among  them,  by  which  all  the  fervor  of  life 
and  missionary  enterprise  was  lost."  1 

Now,  it  is  in  the  face  of  this  lesson  from  history,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  and  to  the  doctrine  accepted 
in  the  founding  of  the  American  Board,  that  the  professorial 
authors  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  project  their  assumptions, 
first,  that  there  are  those  who  do  not  have  a  sufficient  knowledge  of 
Christ  in  this  life :  and  second,  that  for  their  benefit  there  is  a 
probation  after  death,  and  thus  assume  that  probation  does  not 
cease  with  this  life.  The  argument  in  favor  of  this  assumption 
is  that,  since  the  atonement  is  for  all  men,  therefore  all  men  must 
at  some  time  hear  of  it,  and  come  to  know  Christ  so  as  to  accept 
him  or  to  reject  him  before  the  final  judgment,  so  that  if  any  do 
not  come  to  know  him  in  this  life  then  there  must  be  opportunity 
for  such  to  come  to  this  knowledge  after  death.  Then  on  the 
assumption  that  there  are,  in  fact,  those  who  do  not  have  the 
requisite  knowledge  in  this  life,  it  is  claimed  that  a  probation  for 
such  after  this  life  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable. 

Now,  in  order  to  test  the  validity  of  these  assumptions,  it  is 
necessary  to  ask  what  is  meant  by  saying  that 

every  man  will  know  Christ  in  his  sacrifice  before  he  meets  him  in 
judgment.2 

What  is  meant  by  saying  that  there  are  millions  who 
will  never  hear  of  the  Gospel  as  a  provision  of  mercy  for  them,3 
» Johnson's  Cyc.  —  Baptists.      2 Prog.  Orth.  p.  139.      3  Ibid.  p.  180. 


54 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


unless  upon  the  assumption  that  there  is  for  them  a  probation 
after  death  which  shall  furnish  them  with  the  opportunity  of  hear- 
ing the  Gospel.  This  question  is  important  because  there  is 
certainly  a  wide  difference  in  the  matter  of  hearing  and  knowing 
Christ  in  his  sacrifice  and  atonement,  between  those  of  the 
smallest  and  those  of  the  greatest  degree  of  this  hearing  and 
knowing.  The  story  is  familiar  of  the  poor  ignorant  Scotch- 
woman, who,  when  catechized  by  her  minister  respecting  his  ser- 
mon on  the  previous  sabbath,  was  unable  to  give  the  text  or  any 
part  of  the  sermon,  and  who,  when  asked  what  good  she  supposed 
his  sermons  would  do  her,  if  when  she  had  heard  them  she  could 
remember  nothing  about  them,  said  that  though  his  sermons  dis- 
appeared from  her  mind  as  the  water  disappeared  which  she 
poured  upon  the  cloth  which  she  was  whitening,  yet  was  her  soul 
like  the  cloth  made  whiter  thereby.  Certainly,  what  this  woman 
had  heard  and  known  of  Christ  was  vastly  less  than  what 
her  distinguished  countryman,  Thomas  Chalmers,  had  heard 
and  known  of  Christ.  There  was  an  almost  infinite  difference 
in  degree,  between  their  hearing  and  knowing.  And  yet  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  none  of  the  present  Andover  professors  represented 
in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  while  admitting  that  Chalmers  had 
heard  and  known  of  Christ,  would  deny  that  the  poor  woman  had 
not  also  a  saving  knowledge  of  Christ.  But,  notwithstanding  this 
difference  in  degree  between  the  hearing  and  knowing  of  this 
woman  and  of  Chalmers,  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that  the  limit  of 
the  scale  of  difference  is  reached  either  way,  at  the  knowing  of 
the  woman  or  at  that  of  Chalmers.  As,  had  Chalmers  lived 
longer  his  knowledge  of  Christ  might  have  attained  a  higher 
degree,  so  the  woman's  knowledge  of  Christ  was  even  less  at  an 
earlier  stage  of  her  Christian  experience.  Nor  is  it  inconceivable 
that  there  may  have  been  another  person  whose  knowledge  of 
Christ  was  even  less  than  that  of  the  woman,  who  was  neverthe- 
less sealed  by  the  "  Spirit  of  Truth"  as  having  a  saving  hearing 
and  knowing  of  Christ.  Because  there  is  a  spiritual  hearing  and 
knowing  from  the  inward  sense  not  dependent  upon  the  external 
word,  and  yet  not  opposed  to  that  word  because  animated  by  the 
same  "Spirit  of  Truth,"  the  lowest  point  in  the  scale  of  the 
effectual  working  of  the  Truth  cannot  be  determined,  therefore 
infants  may  be  regenerated,  according  to  Calvin,  while  it  is  possi- 


Argument  on  Tivelfth  Complaint. 


55 


ble  for  a  heathen  to  trust  in  a  Deliverer  from  sin,  as  shown  in  the 
argument  on  the  thirteenth  specification.  For  these  reasons  it  can- 
not be  proved  that  there  has  ever  been  a  man  who  did  not  have 
sufficient  probation  in  this  life,  and  because  it  cannot  be  proved 
but  that  Christ  maybe  known  to  men  spiritually  —  through  the 
efficiency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  —  who  do  not  know  him  historically 
by  the  external  Word.  This  is  consistent  with  New  England  the- 
ology. It  is  maintained  by  one  of  its  ablest  exponents,  that 
"Men  maybe  saved,  who  never  exercised  specific  faith  in  the 
atonement.  Men  may  not  have  all  the  applications  of  the  atone- 
ment, and  yet  may  be  under  the  provisions  of  the  atonement. 
All  can  be  saved."  "  The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  working 
on  the  hearts  of  Christians  in  the  same  manner  as  in  inspiring 
writers  of  the  Bible."  1  Nor  is  this  working  on  the  heart  confined 
to  those  only  who  have  become  Christians,  for  the  Holy  Spirit's 
work  is  to  convince  the  world,  or  men  in  the  world,  of  every 
variety  of  condition  and  age,  and  endowment  of  faculty,  and 
with  such  efficiency  that  men  can  accept  or  reject  intelligently 
that  measure  of  truth  which  the  Spirit  impresses  upon  them  as 
suited  to  their  capacity.  Otherwise  it  could  not  be  said  that  the 
Spirit  convinces  or  reproves  the  world  of  sin.  In  this  convic- 
tion the  Holy  Spirit  deals  with  the  conscience,  so  that  his  con- 
victing agency  may  be  recognized  upon  the  conscience  of  the 
heathen  as  it  bears  witness  to  the  "  law  written  in  their  hearts."2 
In  remarking  on  this  passage  Professor  Stuart,  in  his  Commentary 
on  Romans,  says  that  "  Those  commit  a  great  mistake,  then,  who 
deny  that  men  can  have  any  sense  of  moral  duty  or  obligation, 
without  a  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  The  Apostle's  argument, 
in  order  to  convince  the  Gentiles  of  sin,  rests  on  a  basis  entirely 
different  from  this,"  —  though  in  no  such  way  as  to  supersede  the 
need  of  a  written  revelation.  If  the  Gentiles  had  doubts  and 
difficulties  about  some  of  the  plainest  principles  of  morality,  it 
was  because  "  their  minds  were  blinded  by  their  passions.  Hence 
the  voice  within  them  was  not  listened  to  ;  but  this  does  not  prove 
that  God  left  himself  without  sufficient  witness  among  them. 
The  Apostle  most  plainly  and  fully  asserts  that  he  did  not." 
From  this  it  follows  that,  since  God  has  left  himself  with  sufficient 
witness  among  the  Gentiles,  it  must  be  a  mistaken  theodicy  that 

1  John  Iff:  8-14.  Notes  taken  from  Dr.  Park's  Lectures.      2  Rom.  2:15. 


56 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


requires  God  to  grant  them  a  probation  after  death,  as  an  amend, 
as  though  he  had  not  left  himself  among  them  with  sufficient 
witness  in  this  life. 

Besides,  if  the  Gentiles  are  blinded  by  their  passions  so  they 
do  not  listen  to  the  voice  within,  so  some  men  are  blinded  under 
the  clearest  light  of  the  written  revelation,  and  where  the  Gospel 
is  proclaimed  iu  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power.  It  is 
evident  that  conversions  do  not  take  place  in  proportion  to  the 
means  employed  to  convert  men  and  turn  them  to  Christ.  Under 
the  most  conspicuous  means  of  Grace,  while  some  have  truly  re- 
pented of  their  sins,  others  by  resisting  these  means  have  hard- 
ened their  hearts,  and  have  become  as  notorious  in  their  rejection 
of  Christ,  and  in  their  profligate  life,  as  the  means  were  distin- 
guished for  inducing  them  to  become  Christians.  It  is  in  striking 
contrast  with  such  facts  that  men  are  sometimes  converted  by, 
what  to  human  view,  is  the  feeblest  instrumentality  conceivable. 
Under  whatever  instrumentality,  it  must  be  said  that  God  exerts 
an  influence  that  can  be  resisted  by  all ;  but  which  all  will  not 
resist.  It  is  not  certain  but  that  the  man  who  resists  diviue  in- 
fluence under  a  feeble  instrumentality  would  resist  that  influence 
with  even  greater  pertinacity  under  the  most  powerful  instrumen- 
tality. The  heathen  who  allows  his  passions  to  make  him  blind 
to  the  witness  which  God  gives  of  himself  to  him  in  this  life, 
might  evolve  from  his  passions  a  still  more  obdurate  blindness 
under  a  probation  after  death.  This  does  not  go  to  prove  that  in 
the  divine  economy  it  may  not  be  expedient  for  God  to  give  a 
clearer  revelation  of  himself  to  some  people  than  any  witness  of 
himself  given  to  the  heathen,  but  it  does  go  to  prove  that  the  wit- 
ness given  of  himself  to  the  heathen  is  sufficient,  so  that  no  pro- 
bation after  this  life  is  needed  to  vindicate  the  divine  justice  and 
wisdom.  It  goes  to  prove  also  that  sin  is,  under  no  conditions, 
simply  a  misfortune  into  which  man  has  fallen  unconsciously,  and 
because  he  always  sins  intelligently,  and  of  choice,  so  that  he 
repents  under  the  feeblest  instrumentality,  and  hardens  his  heart 
against  repentance  under  the  most  powerful  instrumentality,  while 
there  are  instances  in  which  men  have  confessed  to  having  resisted 
the  most  powerful  array  of  motives  to  repentance,  and  to  having, 
years  after,  chosen  to  repent  under  a  comparatively  feeble  impres- 
sion of  motive.    Thus  all  circumstances  combine  to  show  that 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


57 


man  is  not  a  sinner  for  the  want  of  a  fair  chance  to  become  right- 
eous, and  that  with  the  fairest  chance  conceivable  it  is  not  certain 
that  even  then  any  man  would  choose  to  be  righteous. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  even  in  temporal  affairs  those  who 
do  not  have  what  is  considered  a  fair  chance,  many  times  succeed 
the  best,  while  those  having  superior  opportunities  complain  mpst 
of  not  having  a  fair  chance  and  so  pretend  to  throw  the  blame  of 
their  worthless  lives  on  circumstances  over  which  they  have  no 
control.  Of  this  there  is  sufficient  confirmation  in  the  many 
instances  where  men  have  risen  from  poverty  to  wealth,  and  learn- 
ing, by  self-denyiug  industry  and  economy,  while  others,  for  the 
lack  of  these  virtues  and  not  choosing  to  practice  them,  have 
descended  from  wealth  to  poverty  through  their  choice  of  vice, 
and  succeeded  to  none  of  the  advantages  of  learning,  though  in 
possession  of  every  facility  for  such  success.  These  facts  in  tem- 
poral affairs,  taken  in  connexion  with  corresponding  facts  in  spir- 
itual things,  furnish  ground  for  the  discredit  of  a  probation  after 
death  in  order  that  any  of  the  human  race  may  have  a  fair  chance, 
as  well  as  for  affirming  that  in  the  light  of  Scripture  as  well  as  of 
reason  the  present  life  is  the  only'  probation. 

It  is  asserted  by  these  Andover  professors,  as  the  most  natural 
conclusion,  that 

those  who  do  not  know  of  God's  love  in  Christ  while  they  are  in  the 
body  will  have  knowledge  of  Christ  after  death.1 

This  assertion  must  be  taken  as  including  all  infants,  in  respect 
to  whom  there  is  reason  for  denying  the  conclusion  that  they  need 
probation  after  death  in  order  to  a  saving  knowledge  of  Christ. 
Calvin's  remark  on  the  regeneration  of  infants  has  already  been 
quoted.  Again,  when  Servetus  concluded  from  the  words  of 
Christ,— 

He  that  helieveth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  hut  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  him,  — 

that, 

infants  who  are  incapable  of  believing,  remain  in  their  condemnation : 
Calvin  replied, 

that  in  this  passage  Christ  is  not  speaking  of  the  general  guilt  in 
•Prog.  Orth.  p.  93. 


58 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


which  all  the  descendants  of  Adam  are  involved,  hut  only  threatening 
the  despisers  of  the  Gospel,  who  proudly  and  obstinately  reject  the 
grace  which  is  offered  to  them ;  and  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  infants. 
I  likewise  oppose  a  contrary  argument ;  all  those  whom  Christ  blesses 
are  exempted  from  the  curse  of  Adam  and  the  wrath  of  God ;  and  as  it 
is  known  that  infants  were  blessed  by  him,  it  follows  that  they  are 
exempted  from  death.1 

And  when  Servetus  quotes  as  Scripture  that 

whosoever  is  born  of  the  Spirit  heareth  the  voice  of  the  Spirit : 

Calvin  replies  that, 

though  we  were  to  admit  it  as  a  genuine  text,  yet  Servetus  could  infer 
nothing  more  from  it  than  that  believers  are  formed  to  obedience  as  the 
Spirit  operates  within  them.  But  that  which  is  affirmed  of  a  certain 
number  it  is  wrong  to  apply  equally  to  all. 

Calvin  also  says  in  this  connexion  :  — 

I  must  again  repeat,  what  I  have  so  often  remarked,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel  is  the  incorruptible  seed,  to  regenerate  those  who  are  capa- 
ble of  understanding  it ;  but  that  where,  by  reason  of  age,  there  is  not 
yet  any  capacity  of  learning,  God  has  his  different  degrees  of  regener- 
ating those  whom  he  has  adopted.4 

Through  failing  to  perceive  the  principle  in  the  remark  of 
Calvin  that 

that  which  is  affirmed  of  a  certain  number  it  is  wrong  to  apply  equally 
to  all ; 

Pelagius,  more  than  a  thousand  years  before  Servetus,  was  in 
doubt  as  to  what  would  become  of  infants.  This  doubt  was 
largely,  if  not  eutirely,  through  applying  to  infants  as  a  class  the 
same  rules  and  requirements  as  to  those  who  having  come  to  years 
of  intelligence  and  moral  perception  were  able  to  hear  and  receive 
the  Gospel.  Thus  Pelagius  must  say  of  infants  in  the  future 
state  :  — 

Where  they  are  not,  I  know,  where  they  are,  I  do  not  know.3 
He  knew  that  infants  were  not  in  heaven,  which,  according  to 
his  doctrine  that  infants  were  born  as  sinless  as  was  Adam  by 
creation,  involved  the  inference  that  God  excluded  innocent  beings 
from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  As  Servetus  infers  that  infants 
who  are  incapable  of  believing  remain  in  their  condemnation  :  and 


i  Inst.  iv.  16. 31.  John  3: 36.      *Inst.  iv.  16.  31.      '  Neander,  vol.  li,  p, 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


59 


as  Pelagius  infers  that  such  infants  are  not  in  heaven :  so  the 
Respondent  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  infers  that  such  infants 
must  have  a  probation  after  death  in  order  that  they  may  be  capa- 
ble of  knowing  Christ.  In  either  case  the  logic  is  the  same.  The 
error  consists  in  applying  equally  to  all  that  which  is  affirmed  of 
a  certain  number  :  in  applying  to  infants  the  method  of  knowing 
Christ  which  is  possible  only  for  adults.  As  Calvin  did  not  make 
this  mistake  in  logic,  he  had  no  occasion  for  accepting  the  doc- 
trine of  Servetus  or  Pelagius,  or  of  guessing  that  there  might 
be  a  future  probation  for  infants. 

If  it  be  said,  however,  as  seems  to  be  implied  in  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  that  under  Calvinism  none  are  saved  but  in  pur- 
suance of 

arbitrary  election  and  reprobation : 
so  that  the  heathen 

from  their  very  birth  are  doomed  to  everlasting  woe : 
and  that  thus  occasion  is  furnished  for 

that  cruel  conception  of  God  which  means  that  vast  multitudes  of  his 
children  can  by  no  possibility  be  saved:1 

it  may  be  justly  said  in  reply  that  Calvinism  merits  no  such 
caricature.  At  any  rate,  whatever  may  be  said  of  some  who 
claimed  to  be  Calvinists,  no  occasion  is  given  for  this  caricature 
in  that  "consistent  Calvinism"  which  is  represented  in  the  Sem- 
inary Creed.  It  is  held  as  an  axiom  that  a  human  court  is  com- 
petent to  determine  the  election  or  ground  upon  which  a  decree 
shall  be  issued,  in  any  case,  when  the  court  has  in  its  possession 
all  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  case.  In  respect  to  human  destiny 
the  Great  Judge  of  all  has  all  the  facts  from  the  beginning  by 
virtue  of  his  Omniscience.  In  the  beginning,  then,  this  Judge 
was  as  well  prepared  to  issue  any  decree  as  he  could  be  after 
what  men  call  history  has  run  its  course  on  earth.  To  deny  this 
is  to  deny  the  Divine  Omniscience.  God  knows  from  the  begin- 
ning everything  that  takes  place  in  time,  and  therefore  everything 
that  takes  place  was  certain  to  take  place.  But  this  furnishes  no 
ground  for  saying  that  anything  takes  place  by  an  "  arbitary 
election "  within  the  meaning  of  fatalism  ;  for,  according  to  the 

'  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  106-108. 


60 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


"  consistent  Calvinism  of  New  England  theology,"  "  the  certainty 
of  human  action  is  distinct  from  its  necessity."  1  Though  it 
should  be  certain  that  an  individual  or  a  class  of  the  human  race 
will  be  lost,  this  would  not  prove,  according  to  Calvinism,  that  it 
is  necessary  that  they  should  be  lost.  There  is,  then,  no  decree, 
nor  "  absolute  election,"  which  requires  that  any  be  lost  of  neces- 
sity. And  this  applies  to  infants  as  well  as  to  adults,  so  that 
there  is  no  "  absolute  election  "  standing  in  the  way  of  the  regen- 
eration of  infants  when  God  removes  them  from  this  life. 

But  if  infants  are  thus  regenerated,  then,  for  them,  a  future 
probation  is  unnecessary,  whether  in  Christendom  or  Heathen- 
dom. Besides,  if  infants  are  saved  in  this  way  because  incapable 
of  being  saved  in  any  other  way,  then  those  adults,  whether  in 
Heathendom  or  Christendom,  who  are  as  incapable  as  infants, 
whether  from  idiocy  or  other  cause,  may  be  saved  in  the  same 
way  as  infants.  Granting  this,  considerable  abatement  must  be 
made  from  the  statement  of  the  professorial  authors  of  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy,"  that  all  the  heathen  must  of  necessity  be  lost 
unless  there  be  a  probation  for  them  after  death.  For  those  who 
are  not  incapable  as  infants,  it  is  certainly  "fair"  that  they 
should  be  judged  according  to  the  light  which  they  have  and  not 
as  though  they  had  all  the  light  of  Christendom.  If  it  be  said 
that  the  Gospel  requires  specific  faith  in  Christ,  and  that  the 
heathen  are  incapable  of  this  faith  and  so  are  of  necessity  with- 
out hope,  the  reply  of  Baxter  to  this  objection  may  be  made, 

that  the  disciples  of  Jesus  became  regenerate  men  before  they 
believed  that  he  was  to  die  on  the  cross;  faith  in  the  atonement  is 
necessary  where  the  atonement  can  be  known,  but  where  this  blessed 
truth  cannot  be  known,  there  God  never  exacteth  from  men  according 
to  what  they  have  not,  but  only  requires  a  good  use  of  what  they 
have. 

Baxter  says  further  that, 

when  penitent,  the  heathen  have  been  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
on  the  ground  of  Christ's  atonement,  although  they  have  never  heard 
of  their  Redeemer  or  their  Sanctifier.  God  often  blesses  men  without 
their  knowledge.2 

Thus  the  heathen  are  under  the  "law  of  Grace"  no  less  than 
other  men,  though  they  have  not  heard  of  tbe  operation  of  that 
law  to  the  extent  that  other  men  have. 

i  Bib.  Sac.  vol.  ix.  p.  185.      2  Ibid.  vol.  xil.  p.  368. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


61 


But  there  is  authority  more  apposite  in  this  discussion  because 
it  is  from  the  New  England  theology,  and  so  related  to  the 
Creed  of  the  Seminary  to  which  the  professors  have  subscribed 
and  which  they  have  promised  faithfully  to  teach,  though  contrary 
to  that  they  advocate  a  future  probation.  As  an  instance  of  this 
authority, 

Dr.  Bellamy  teaches,  in  a  volume  which  Edwards  recommended, 
that  the  heathen  are  without  excuse  because  they  enjoy  "  sufficient 
means  of  knowledge  " ;  that  God's  law  is  on  a  perfect  level  with  man's 
"natural  powers  and  natural  advantages";  that  "if  God  looks  upon 
the  advantages  of  the  heathen  as  sufficient,  no  wonder  that  he  so  often 
speaks  of  the  advantages  of  his  own  people  as  being  more  than  barely 
sufficient,  even  although  they  enjoy  only  the  outward  means. of  grace 
Avithout  the  inward  influences  of  the  Spirit " ;  "  and  thus  we  see  how  all 
mankind  have  not  only  sufficient  natural  powers,  but  also  sufficient  out- 
ward advantages  to  know  God,  and  perfectly  conform  to  his  law,  even 
the  heathen  themselves."  1 

Dr.  Smalley  says  :  — 

It  must,  I  think,  be  granted  that  we  do  generally  suppose  a  man's 
present  duty  cannot  exceed  his  present  strength,  suppose  it  to  have 
been  impaired  by  what  means  it  will.2 

Dr.  Smalley  often  speaks  of  a 

want  of  opportunity  as  excusing  the  sinner  from  blame.3 
Thus, 

the  doctrine  of  the  New  England  theology,  is  that  any  powerless- 
ness,  in  the  original,  literal  and  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  is  incom- 
patible with  obligation.4 

It  follows,  then,  according  to  the  New  England  theology,  that 
because  the  heathen  enjoy  "  sufficient  means  of  knowledge,"  they 
do  not  require  a  probation  after  death  in  order  to  secure  the 
degree  of  knowledge  necessary  to  their  salvation. 

But  the  Andover  professors  tell  us  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  " 
that  when  it  is  admitted  that 

conscientious  heathen  living  up  to  the  knowledge  they  have  are 
actually  saved  through  Christ  and  his  atonement,  although  they  have 
no  knowledge  of  the  actual  Christ  nor  of  his  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of 
the  world ; 5 

1  As  quoted  by  Dr.  Edwards  A.  Park,  1Mb.  Sac.  vol.  ix,  p.  179.  2  Sermon  on  Moral 
Inability,  p.  5,  ed.  1811.  a  Sermon  on  Natural  Ability,  p.  38,  ed.  1811.  *  Bib.  Sac. 
vol  ix,  p.  182.      e  pr0g.  Qrth.  p.  87. 


62 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


It  is  perilously  akin,  in  its  postulates,  to  the  Deism  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, which  maintained  that  the  knowledge  of  reason  and  the  commands 
of  conscience  are  sufficient,  and  which  held  Christianity  to  be  not  a 
supernatural  redemption,  but  only  a  superior  system  of  moral  teaching.1 

But  admitting  that  this  view  is  perilously  akin  to  Deism,  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  remedy  for  this  peril  is  found  in  the  Pantheism 
of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  for  Pantheism  is  no  remedy  for 
Deism.  It  is  true  that  many  have  thought,  or  pretended  to  think, 
otherwise,  who,  with  their  eyes  fixed  on  Deism  as  the  only  gulf 
to  avoid,  have  stumbled  backward  into  the  abyss  of  Pantheism. 
This  has  happened  in  Germany  to  some,  in  advocating  what  is 
called  a  "  mediating  theology,"  who  seemed  to  think  that  the 
safe  path  must  lie  between  the  extremes  of  Deism  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  Pantheism  on  the  other  hand  :  between  the  doctrine 
of  the  Divine  transceudence  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  im- 
manence. Such  a  path  is  untenable,  and  because  it  supposes 
there  is  hostility  between  transcendence  and  immanence,  so  that 
the  truth  is  found  only  in  mediation.  But,  according  to  Christian 
theism,  there  is  no  such  hostility,  for  the  transcendence  and  im- 
manence are  involved  in  one  and  the  same  idea  —  the  Divine 
immensity.  God  is  everywhere  present,  both  within  the  created 
universe  and  beyond  it,  so  that  there  is  a  verbal  convenience  in 
speaking  of  his  presence  in  the  created  universe  as  his  omnipres- 
ence, or  immanence  :  and  of  his  presence  in  all  space  outside  of 
the  created  universe  as  his  transcendence.  But  these  distinctions 
involve  no  real  distinction  in  the  Divine  essence,  according  to 
which  the  view  that  the  heathen  have  a  sufficient  probation  in  this 
life  furnishes  no  approach  to  Deism  which  affirms  only  the  Divine 
transcendence,  and  thus  denies  the  Divine  omnipresence  in  the 
created  universe.  This,  in  the  light  of  Christian  theism,  is  equiv- 
alent to  saying  that  there  is  no  God,  and  because  that  any 
proposition  that  denies  the  Divine  immensity  in  the  whole  or  in 
part  serves  Atheism.  So  the  Greek  immanence,  which  differs 
from  the  omnipresence  of  Christian  theism  by  maintaining  the 
identity  of  the  Divine  and  the  human  in  the  world,  thus  involving 
a  real  distinction  between  the  Divine  essence  as  existing  in  the 
world,  and  the  Divine  essence  as  existing  beyond  the  world,  is, 
when  carried  out,  equivalent  to  saying  that  there  is  no  God,  and 


iProg.  Orth.  p. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


63 


because  this  division  and  confusion  of  the  Divine  essence  involve 
the  denial  of  the  Divine  immensity  as  to  indivisibility  of  essence. 
Now,  while  both  Deism  and  Pantheism  are  errors,  not  merely  by 
exaggeration  of  a  truth,  but  in  their  essential  denial  of  truth,  so 
that  no  path  of  compromise  laid  out  between  them  can  consist 
with  truth ;  still  there  is  a  sense  in  which  Deism  is  the  lesser  of 
the  two  errors.  It  is  easier  for  some  minds  to  pass  at  once  from 
Deism  to  Christian  theism  than  to  pass  at  once  from  Pantheism 
to  Christian  theism.  Of  this  there  is  an  illustration  in  the  Annual 
Report  of  the  American  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  for  1857,  in 
which  Mr.  Ballautine  represents  Hindu  pantheists  taking  Deism 
as  an  intermediate  step  in  their  departure  from  Pantheism,  the 
next  step  from  Deism  to  Christianity  being  taken  more  easily  by 
them  than  to  have  passed  at  once  from  Pantheism  to  Christianity. 

Practically,  however,  there  are  points  of  agreement  between 
Deism  and  Pantheism  in  their  hostility  to  Christian  theism.  Thus 
they  agree  in  denying  that  there  is  any  need  of,  or  supernatural 
value  in,  the  Scriptures  as  a  written  revelation.  They  may  make 
this  denial  on  different  grounds.  Deism  may  assume  that  man  has 
been  created  with  such  efficiency  of  natural  faculty  that  he  needs 
no  objective  supernatural  instruction  like  that  of  the  Bible  consid- 
ered as  a  supernatural  product.  On  the  other  hand,  Pantheism 
may  assume  that  God  is  so  within  man,  immanent,  and  that  Christ 
is  such  an  integral  part  in  the  Divine  immanence  as  to  be  the 
supreme  revelation  of  God  to  men,  the  subjective  revelation,  so 
that  there  is  no  need  of  the  objective  revelation  in  the  Bible,  or 
if  there  is  any  need  of  that,  care  must  be  taken  not  to  place  it 
above  or  on  the  same  level  with  the  supreme  subjective  revelation 
of  God  and  Christ  immanent  in  man.  Let  the  Bible  be  put  on 
the  level  of  ordinary  history,  without  any  claim  of  being  inspired, 
absolute,  inerrant,  or  as  being  the  only  sufficient  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  then  the  more  moderate  Pantheism  may  speak 
of  it  as  a  revelation  in  the  sense  that  everything  contains  a  reve- 
lation. Thus  in  the  rejection  of  the  supernatural  value  of  the 
Scriptures,  Pantheism  becomes  an  ally  of  that  Deism  which  it 
professes  to  oppose  with  tireless  energy  :  of  which  Neander  says 
well  that 

the  Deistic  and  Pantheistic  theories,  which,  although  they  arise  from 
directly  opposite  modes  of  thought,  agree  perfectly  in  opposing  super- 


64 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


naturalism,  must  deny  in  the  outset  what  the  supernatural-theistic  views 
hold  to  be  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  genuine  world-redeeming  Christ.1 

Thus,  iu  minimizing  the  supernatural  value  of  the  Scriptures 
and  asserting  that  the  supreme  revelation  consists  in  the  imma- 
nence of  Christ  in  the  human  race,  the  doctrine  of  the  Andover 
professors,  as  represented  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  is  more 
than  "perilously  akin"  to  Pantheism,  for  it  is  Pantheism  in  its 
Christology.  And  because  of  the  coalition  of  Pantheism  with 
Deism  against  the  Scriptures,  the  doctrine  of  these  professors  is 
itself  "  perilously  akin  to  Deism."  It  is  indeed  affirmed  by  them 
that 

The  Bible  is  the  supreme  authority  for  man,  because  it  embodies  the 
Gospel  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.2 

But  they  say  also  in  speaking  of  Christ  that 

He  is  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  every  soul  in  which  he 
dwells,  and  there  have  been  some  souls  in  ages  since  the  apostolic  in 
which  he  has  so  abundantly  shed  the  radiance  of  God's  truth  that  they 
have  been  the  spiritual  luminaries  of  their  own  and  following  centuries.3 

Again  they  say  that 

The  Incarnation  is  the  essential  revelation:  but  the  Incarnation  is 
more  than  the  presence  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus  on  earth,  and  the  things 
he  did  and  suffered.  —  It  is  the  fact  of  union  between  the  divine  and  the 
human,  the  awful  "mystery  of  godliness";  it  is  the  relation  of  this 
union  to  the  life  of  man  and  the  life  of  God.4 

The  professors  also  say  that  by  the  Incarnation  Christ  is 

The  eternal  source  and  principle  of  revelation.  —  In  the  Incarnation 
he  has  carried  revelation  to  its  highest  conceivable  stage  and  mode,  how- 
ever augmented  it  may  be  in  degree  and  power.5 

And  again  they  say  that  Christ  lias  such  an  affinity  for  all  men 
that  Christ  has  an  organic  relation  to  the  race.6 

From  these  statements  it  appears  that  Christ  by  the  Incarnation 
is  identified  with  the  humanity  of  Heathendom  as  much  as  with 
the  humanity  of  Christendom,  for  he  is  identified  with  universal 
humanity  and  because  he  is  hereby  the  eternal  source  and  princi- 
ple of  revelation  in  universal  humanity.  Now,  it  is  consistent 
with  this  view  to  allow  that  this  revelation  of  Christ  in  humanity 

i  Life  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  12.  2  Prog.  Orth.  p.  256.  3  Ibid.  p.  209.  4  Ibid.  p.  205. 
'Ibid.  p.  34.      "Ibid.  p.  52. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


65 


appears  in  different  degrees  of  manifestation  somewhat  according 
to  environment.  The  apostles  having  a  favored  environment 
manifested  the  revelation  of  Christ  as  identified  with  their 
humanity  in  a  high  degree.  Others  since  the  apostles  have  mani- 
fested this  revelation  in  an  unusual  degree.  Those  whose  envi- 
ronment is  less  favorable  than  that  of  the  apostles  or  any  since 
their  time  are  incapable  of  this  manifestation  of  the  revelation  of 
Christ  in  their  humanity  through  the  Incarnation,  except  in  a 
smaller  degree,  for  otherwise  the  most  difficult  question  for  the- 
odicy must  arise,  in  which  it  would  be  charged  that  God  had 
implanted  a  principle  of  revelation  in  humanity  without  giving 
that  principle  any  possible  environment  for  its  manifestation,  in 
some  instances.  If  this  were  true,  then  God  might  as  well  not 
have  implanted  the  principle  of  revelation  at  all  in  humanity,  in 
some  instances.  But  the  Incarnation,  as  affecting  universal 
humanity,  will  not  allow  of  such  an  exception.  It  follows,  then, 
that  a  fuller  manifestation  of  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  humanity 
requires,  in  any  case,  not  probation,  but  improved  environment. 
Probation,  as  a  test  limiting  environment  either  to  a  specified  time 
or  to  any  particular  degree  of  opportunity,  is  all  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, for  it  must  be  conceded  from  this  point  of  view  that  envi- 
ronment will  be  improved  without  limit  until  the  revelation  of 
Christ  in  universal  humanity  shall  have  been  so  manifested  in  all 
the  race  as  to  secure  universal  salvation. 

It  is  a  favorite  expression  of  modern  pantheists  that  "  God  is  in 
embryo  in  every  man,  though  in  different  degrees  of  develop- 
ment," hence  there  is  an  ever  becoming  manifestation  of  God  in 
man.  It  is  hard  to  find  any  appreciable  difference  between  this 
view  and  that  advanced  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

When  the  Andover  professors  say  that 

the  Bible  is  the  supreme  authority  for  man, 

to  be  consistent  they  must  only  mean  that  in  this  life  the  Bible  is 
included  in  the  best  environment,  while  after  death  there  will  be 
a  larger  and  better  environment  than  any  in  this  life  with  the 
Bible  included.  But  on  these  premises  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that 
any  environment  is  insufficient,  in  its  time  and  place.  The  Divine 
is  already  in  man,  and  the  evolution  of  the  Divine  in  man  will, 
throughout  all  ages,  be  appropriate  in  degree  to  the  environment. 


66 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


Neither  can  the  Divine  in  man  escape  condemnation,  if  man  is 
ever  condemned  at  any  day  of  judgment,  as  was  shown  in  our 
discussion  of  the  thirteenth  specification.  In  the  New  England 
theology  a  man  is  recognized  as  a  Christian  as  soon  as  there  is  a 
single  spark  of  righteousness  in  him.  This  spark,  however,  is 
found  only  in  those  who  through  faith  and  repentance  experience 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  those  not  having  the  Scriptures 
experiencing  this  renewing  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  a  manner  suited 
to  their  condition.  But,  according  to  the  authors  of  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  this  spark  is  not  communicated  through  faith  and 
repentance  in  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  is  communi- 
cated to  the  entire  human  race  through  the  Incarnation,  and  is  to 
manifest  itself  by  evolution,  somewhere,  either  in  this  life  or  here- 
after, in  appropriate  degree  :  so  that  the  office  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  renewer  and  sanctifier,  according  to  the  Seminary 
Creed,,  is  ignored.  This  evolution  is  impelled  by  the  "  Christ 
within."  All  objective  forces  must  be  discredited  in  order  to 
avoid  what  is  called  a  "mechanical  view."  Thus  the  Bible  has 
no  objective  value  for  it  is  not,  even, 
what  Christ  said  or  did, 

in  such  sense  as  to  be  taken  as  the  foundation  for  ideas  or  doc- 
trine, for  it  is  the  life  of  Christ  already  in  men  "  alone"  that  has 
value.    So  when  it  is  said  that 

the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  work  represents  the  place  of  motive  in 
Christianity,1 

it  cannot  be  intended  that  he  represents  the  place  of  objective 
motive  in  bringing  home  to  human  thought 
what  Christ  said  or  did; 

as  doctrine  and  truth,  for  this  is  ruled  out  of  the  question.  It 
must  be  meant  therefore  that  the  Holy  Spirit  somehow  represents 
the  place  of  subjective  motive  within  man,  presents  Christ  as 
motive  from  within  the  human  constitution,  in  which  the  Divine 
and  the  human  are  identical.  But  Christ  himself  being  already 
within  man,  any  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  sense  to  bring 
Christ  to  man's  thought  from  within  is  unnecessary  and  improb- 
able, according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  held  by  the 


•Prog.  Orth.  p.  US. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


67 


professors  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  for  Christ  is  already 
identified  with  the  human  constitution,  and  therefore  with  the 
power  of  human  thought.    To  say  that 

the  function  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  take  the  things  of  Christ,  and 
show  them  unto  men,1 

is  certainly  a  useless  piece  of  "  machinery,"  since  Christ  is 
already  within  men,  unless  the  Holy  Spirit  and  Christ,  as  within 
the  race,  are  taken  to  be  identical,  thus  impairing  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity. 

When  it  is  said  that  the 

process  through  which  the  Christian  is  developed :  —  is  all  expressed  in 
the  personal  act  of  repentance  toward  God,  and  of  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ; 

and  that 

the  personal  appropriation  of  Christ  in  his  life  and  death  constitutes  the 
sinner  a  Christian  ; 2 

the  language  is  such  that  it  may  signify  nothing  more  than  that 
the  Christ  Incarnate  in  the  race  is  evolved,  or  "  developed  "  through 
a  certain  "  process,"  to  which  the  terms  "  faith,"  "  repentance," 
and  "  personal  appropriation"  are  of  no  consequence,  except  on 
the  supposition  that  they  are  used  to  make  a  show  of  some  con- 
nexion with  the  Seminary  Creed,  by  using  some  of  the  terms  of 
that  Creed.  For  all  that  can  be  said,  and  the  only  thing  that  can 
be  properly  said  upon  this  theory  of  Incarnation  and  atonement, 
is,  that  every  man  is  already  a  Christian,  potentially,  by  having 
Christ  within  him  :  and  that  here  or  hereafter  in  the  ages  to  come 
he  will  be  developed  in  Christian  life  by  the  Christ  within  him. 
To  admit  that  any  soul  of  the  human  race  will  not  be  thus  devel- 
oped, and  therefore  be  forever  lost,  is  to  admit  that  so  much  of 
Christ  as  is  identified  with  that  soul  must  be  identified  with  that 
soul  in  its  final  condition.  The  New  theology,  in  stoutly  asserting 
the  identity  of  the  Divine  and  the  human  in  its  Christology,  not 
only  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  but  also  in  later  publications, 
has  committed  itself  irretrievably  to  the  logical  conclusion  from  its 
premise  that  if  any  of  the  human  race  are  finally  miserable  some- 
thing of  Christ  must  also  be  finally  miserable. 


1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  65.      2  Ibid.  p.  143. 


68  Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


A  recent  Editorial  in  The  Andover  Review,  by  one  of  the 
Authors  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  contains  the  following 
passage  :  — 

Why  could  not  the  Infinite  Being  have  so  united  himself  to  the  life  of 
a  creature  made  in  his  image,  as  to  have  that  life  in  its  limitations  as 
one  of  the  forms  of  his  own  life?  The  dogmatic  affirmation  that  he 
could  not  do  this,  and  that  the  Church,  in  believing  that  he  has  done  so, 
believes  that  something  took  place  which  cannot  possibly  have  taken 
place,  ought  to  have  little  weight  with  thoughtful  minds.1 

Now,  it  is  obvious  that  if  the  Infinite  Being  has  so  united  himself 
with  any  creature — as  with  the  human  nature  of  Jesus,  so  as  to 
have  the  life  of  the  creature  Jesus  in  its  limitations  "one  of  the 
forms  of  his  own  life,"  then  to  the  extent  of  the  creature  life  the 
Infinite  Being  and  the  creature  are  identical.  If  also  through 
the  Incarnation  the  human  "  race  is  reconstituted,"  so  that  "  the 
immanence  of  Christ  is  an  integral  part  of  the  conception  of  the 
Divine  immanence,"2  —  immanence  being  taken  here  in  the  Greek 
sense,  — so  that  the  life  of  universal  human  nature  is  one  of  the 
forms  of  the  life  of  the  Infinite  Being,  then  the  identity  of  the 
Divine  with  the  human  is  maintained  in  harmony  with  the  require- 
ments of  monistic  Pantheism.  When  it  is  said  that  the  affirma- 
tion of  those  who  oppose  this  view  "  ought  to  have  little  weight 
with  thoughtful  minds":  those  who  make  this  affirmation  would 
not  seem  to  be  called  on  to  treat  those  whom  they  oppose  with 
such  extreme  delicacy  as  to  withhold  any  logical  arguments  which 
the  discussion  might  require. 

It  may  be  asked  of  those  who  have  such  "  thoughtful  minds," 
what  advantage  is  gained  by  the  advocates  of  future  probation, 
over  those  whose  views  they  oppose,  in  consistency  of  thought? 
They  allege  that  one  class  of  those  whose  views  they  oppose 
maintains  that  if  any  of  the  heathen  are  saved  it  must  be  by 
what  they  call  "  arbitrary  election."  But  the  odium  of  what  they 
call  "arbitrary  election"  is  removed  when  it  is  replied  that 
through  the  Divine  omniscience  all  the  facts  in  every  case  are 
known  to  the  Divine  mind,  so  that  there  is,  in  reality,  no  such 
thing  as  "  arbitrary  election,"  because  that  election  is  in  harmony 
with  the  knowledge  of  facts. 

The  professors  at  Andover  who  advocate  a  future  probation 

1  Andover  Review,  July,  1802,  p.  S3.      -  Ibid.  vol.  xiii,  434. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


69 


allege  that  another  class  whose  views  they  oppose  are  incon- 
sistent in  supposing  that  any  of  the  heathen  can  be  saved  in  this 
life  without  a  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ :  but  they  them- 
selves are  inconsistent  in  attaching  so  much  importance  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ,  after  minimizing  the  Scriptures 
and  the  objective  history  of  Christ  in  them,  while  at  the  same 
time  they  magnify  the  subjective  Christ  within  all  men,  whether 
in  Heathendom  or  Christendom. 

Again,  these  advocates  of  future  probation  virtually  allege 
the  inconsistency  of  those  who  believe  that  probation  in  this  life 
is  sufficient  since  even  the  heathen  are  to  be  judged  only  accord- 
ing to  the  measure  of  light  and  knowledge  which  they  have  :  and 
because,  they  say,  that  the  heathen  cannot  have  a  sufficient 
objective  motive  for  right  action  ;  but  they  themselves  are  incon- 
sistent in  requiring  a  future  probation  in  distinction  from  that  of 
this  life  in  which  any  of  the  human  race  may  become  Christians, 
when  in  fact  all  men  are  already,  potentially  Christians,  through 
the  indwelling  Christ,  so  that  their  Christian  development  is, 
even  now,  assured. 

Again,  the  Andover  professors,  in  advocating  a  future  proba- 
tion, allege  that  those  who  believe  that  probation  in  this  life  is 
sufficient  are  inconsistent  in  supposing  that  any  can  be  saved 
through  the  Christ  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ;  but  they  them- 
selves are  inconsistent  in  admitting  that  any  can  be  lost  when 
Christ  is  declared  to  be  in,  and  organically  one  with,  the  whole 
human  race.  Their  claim  for  a  future  probation  is  inconsistent 
also  because  it  requires  them  to  separate  those  who,  according  to 
their  assumption,  know  Christ  in  this  life  from  those  who  do  not 
know  Christ  in  this  life  by  an  arbitrary  line,  so  that  all  on  one 
side  of  this  line  will  have  a  future  probation,  while  all  on  the 
other  side  of  this  line  do  not  need  a  future  probation,  and  this 
while  all  on  both  sides  of  this  line  have  the  same  Christ  within 
them.  According  to  the  premise  any  such  distinction  between  a 
present  and  a  future  probation  is  absurd,  for  in  this  case  proba- 
tion is  only  another  name  for  pantheistic  evolution  which  is  with- 
out division  or  limitation,  whose  movement  is  as  real  now  as  it 
ever  can  be. 

Yet  again,  the  Andover  professors  who  maintain  the  hypothesis 
of  a  future  probation  characterize  the  salvation  which  some  of 


70 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


their  opponents  suppose  men  may  have  in  this    life  without 
historic  Christianity 
as  salvation  by  magic.1 

But  they  themselves  hold  "  a  salvation  by  magic"  —  the  "  magic 
of  mysticism."  This  magic  rests  on  the  pantheistic  assumption 
of  "  a  mutual  harmony  of  all  that  exists,  and  that  all  things  exist 
by  God  in  nature  as  the  immediate  force  that  forms  and  sus- 
tains them."  Thus  "  celestial  magic  "  is  defined  as  man  in  com- 
munion with  God  as  the  inmost  and  identical  principle,  and  force, 
of  man's  own  being.  This  is  magic  reveling  in  subjective  vaga- 
ries of  the  imagination  to  the  exclusion  of  the  outward  and 
objective  world.  In  respect  of  Divine  things  it  conceives  of  an 
internal  illumination  in  the  soul  which  is  the  light  of  God  as 
identical  with  the  soul.    Hence  Eckhart  could  say  :  — 

There  is  in  the  soul  something  uncreated,  and  exalted  above  all  that  is 
created.2 

According  to  Neander  this  pantheistic  mysticism  arose  because 

the  longing  for  union  with  God  was  not  ever  accompanied  side  by  side 
with  a  consciousness  of  the  self-subsistence  of  the  creaturely  spirit,  and 
the  infinite  exaltation  of  God  above  the  world,  with  a  consciousness  of 
sin  standing  in  contrariety  with  the  holiness  of  God,  with  a  humility 
never  forgetting  for  a  moment  the  strict  line  that  separates  the  creature 
from  the  Creator. 

Hence  in  this  mysticism  there  was 

a  thoroughly  anti-Christian  tendency,  hostile  to  everything  super- 
natural, every  intimation  of  a  God  above  the  world;  a  tendency  which 
contained,  first  in  the  form  of  mysticism,  the  germ  of  absolute  Ration- 
alism and  the  deification  of  reason.3 

Now,  this  magic  of  mysticism  is  found  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Andover  professors  as  represented  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
because  in  its  conception  of  union  with  God  "  the  consciousness 
of  the  self-subsistence  of  the  creaturely  spirit,  is  not  accom- 
panied side  by  side  with  the  consciousness  of  the  infinite  exalta- 
tion of  God  above  the  world  "  ;  and  because  that  "  the  strict  line 
which  separates  the  creature  from  the  Creator  is  forgotten,"  and 
because  that  its  conception  of  the  Divine  immanence  either  makes 
the  human  reason  identical  with  the  Divine  reason,  or,  what  is 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  133.      2  Neander,  vol.  v,  p.  395.      3  Neander,  vol.  v,  pp.  392,  393. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


71 


the  same  in  result,  deifies  human  reason,  and  thus  becomes  an 
ally  of  absolute  rationalism  ;  so  that  the  plan  of  salvation  pro- 
posed on  these  principles  of  mysticism  is  a  "  salvation  by  magic." 
But  the  salvation  supposed  possible  for  the  heathen,  which  is 
opposed  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  is  not  a  "salvation  by 
magic,"  for  it  is  consistent  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian 
theism,  under  which  there  is  no  identification  of  the  human  with 
the  Divine,  while  the  salvation  is  wrought  under  the  efficiency  of 
means  compatible  with  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor,  as  is 
objected,  does  this  salvation  take  place  "  wrought  out  independ- 
ently of  human  consciousness,"  for  in  every  heathen  in  whom 
this  salvation  should  be  effected  there  would  be  the  human  con- 
sciousness of  joy  and  "the  peace  of  God  which  passeth  under- 
standing," 1  as  in  men  more  enlightened.  If  it  were  said  that  in 
this  case  salvation  would  be  wrought  out  independently  of  that 
high  degree  of  human  consciousness  evinced  in  the  experience  of 
Chalmers,  the  statement  could  be  accepted.  But  when  it  is 
said,  without  qualification,  that  in  this  case  salvation  would  be 
"wrought  out  independently  of  the  human  consciousness,"  the 
statement  must  be  denied,  for,  according  to  the  grounds  on  which 
this  salvation  is  supposed  to  take  place,  no  man  is  saved  except 
upon  the  conscious  action  of  his  own  will  in  choosing  salvation, 
according  to  the  measure  of  his  capacity  and  understanding. 

Again,  the  advocates  of  this  future  probation  are  inconsistent 
in  laying  down  pantheistic  principles  respecting  probation,  and 
presuming  to  carry  them  out  according  to  Christian  theism. 

And  finally,  the  Andover  professors,  in  advocating  this  future 
probation,  are  inconsistent  in  charging  those  with  agnosticism 
who  believe  that  in  this  life  there  is  sufficient  probation,  while 
they,  after  all,  are  themselves  chargeable  with  agnosticism,  since 
their  future  probation  rests  on  an  unproven  hypothesis,  and  is 
incapable  of  proof  from  either  Scripture  or  reason.  So  long  as 
they  themselves  fail  to  prove  their  hypothesis  and  are  compelled 
to  fall  back  on  agnosticism  in  respect  to  it  as  their  pet  theory,  it 
must  be  taken  as  a  poor  vindication  on  their  part  which  consists 
in  affirming,  without  proof  and  in  the  face  of  glaring  inconsist- 
encies, that  their  agnosticism  is  only  something  infinitesimally 
less  in  degree  than  the  agnosticism  of  those  whose  views  they 

iPhil. 


72 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


oppose.  It  has  been  received  as  an  axiom  that  "  ignorance  is 
incompetent  to  raise  an  objection."  If  this  is  true,  it  may  be 
confidently  asked,  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian  theism,  what 
propriety  there  can  be  in  assuming  to  have  discovered  a  wonder- 
ful vindication  of  the  justice  of  God  in  the  hypothesis  of  a 
future  probation,  meanwhile  confessing  ignorance  or  agnosticism 
as  to  the  truth  of  this  hypothesis. 

But  without  arguing  the  merits  of  this  future  probation  in 
detail,  further  than  to  show  that  its  claim  is  useless  as  compared 
with  the  view  that  this  life  furnishes  a  sufficient  probation,  we 
come  to  the  main  argument,  which  is  that  this  future  probation 
cannot  be  taught,  either  as  a  doctrine  or  as  an  uuproven  hypothe- 
sis on  the  Andover  Foundation,  except  as  a  perversion  of  the 
Creed  of  the  Seminary,  for,  "  the  doctrine  of  probation  limited 
to  this  life  lies  imbedded  in  the  original  basis  of  the  Seminary."  1 
It  is  unnecessary  to  spend  any  time  in  proving  the  truth  of  this 
statement,  since  the  exhaustive  arguments  of  Dr.  Park  on  the 
Associate  Creed,  and  of  Dr.  Dexter  on  the  eleventh  specifica- 
tion, are  already  in  the  case  before  your  Honorable  Board. 

It  follows  from  these  arguments  that  this  attempted  perversion 
of  the  Seminary  Creed  contemplates  also  the  perversion  of  the 
principles  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  missions  as  represented 
in  the  American  Board  by  the  common  Founders  of  both  the 
Seminary  and  the  Board,  and  thus  sustaining  the  charge  in  the 
twelfth  specification  which  we  are  now  arguing. 

This  perversion  is  sought  under  the  insidious  claim  that  candi- 
dates for  appointment  under  the  American  Board  should  be  allowed 
the  freedom  to  believe  in  this  future  probation,  the  absurdity  of 
which  appears  in  the  fact  that  those  who  claim  to  have  "  thinking 
minds,"  and  who  come  to  the  front  in  this  claim,  are,  after  all, 
not  sure  that  there  is  such  a  probation.  If  they  were  sure  of  it, 
if  there  were  no  agnosticism  at  bottom  on  their  part,  there  would 
be  less  inconsistency  in  this  claim,  though  then  there  could  be  no 
authority  for  them  to  teach  their  hypothesis  contrary  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Seminary  Creed.  Freedom  to  believe  what  is  con- 
fessed to  be  established  by  argument  and  accepted  by  honest 
convictions  has  generally  been  considered  as  quite  sufficient  to 
answer  the  demands  of  liberty.    But  when  in  the  name  of  free- 

1  Dr.  Edwards  A.  Park,  on  The  Associate  Creed,  p.  65. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


73 


clora  it  is  claimed  that  one  must  have  liberty  to  believe  in  an 
unproved  hypothesis,  of  which  there  is  no  probability  that  it  ever 
can  be  proved,  this  claim  seems  to  arrogate  the  right  of  a  man  to 
be  a  simpleton,  rather  than  the  right  and  freedom  to  accept  and 
profess  the  certain  conclusions  of  a  truly  "thoughtful  miud." 
We  have  heard  of  the  man  who  was  so  timid  that  he  was  always 
afraid  that  he  should  be  afraid,  but  this  timidity  seems  to  be 
outdone  by  those  who  are  in  this  case  so  deeply  exercised  by 
timidity  that  they  are  desperately  afraid  that  they  may  not  have 
liberty  to  believe  what  is  not  so,  or,  at  least,  what  they  them- 
selves confess  is  not  proved  to  be  so.  In  an  article  under  the 
head  of  "Compromising  on  Agnosticism,"  written  by  one  of  the 
editors  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  published  in  The  Chris- 
tian Union,  November  19,  1892,  it  is  said,  in  respect  to  the  policy 
of  the  American  Board  as  expounded  by  its  President,  that  his 
words  nowhere  affirm  "The  Right  of  Opinion."  The  writer 
makes  the  distiuction  between  opinion  and  doctrine  to  consist  in 
this,  that  "a  doctrine  belongs  to  the  formulated  substance  of  the 
Gospel.  It  is  a  part  of  the  message.  It  is  to  be  preached.  An 
opinion  belongs  to  the  philosophy  of  religion.  It  has  its  place,  in 
the  form  of  a  theory  or  explanation,  in  the  interpretation  of 
Christianity  especially  as  related  to  those  problems  which  lie 
somewhat  outside  the  region  of  absolute  knowledge."  This  dis- 
tinction is  defective  in  that  the  line  which  separates  opinion  from 
doctrine  is  not  drawn  with  the  requisite  sharpness.  According  to 
the  standard  authorities,  "  A  doctrine  is  anything  held  as  true  : 
anything  laid  down  as  true  by  an  instructor  or  master,  hence  the 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible."  But  "  an 
opinion  is  what  one  thinks,  as  distinguished  from  what  one  knows 
to  be  true  ;  a  judgment  founded  on  evidence  that  does  not  pro- 
duce knowledge  or  certainty."  In  this  clear  and  sharp  distinc- 
tion opinion  does  not  lie  "  somewhat,"  but  altogether  "  outside  " 
the  region  of  absolute  knowledge,  outside  of  knowledge  in  any 
respect  as  "  certainty." 

Now,  while  it  is  conceivable  that  one  might  hold  this  distinction 
in  the  abstract,  yet  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  practically  any 
considerable  number  —  if  indeed  any  —  would  or  could  hold  it  iu 
respect  to  preaching  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  without  asserting 
the  right  of  opinion  in  such  a  way  as  to  encroach  upon  the  right 


74  Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


of  doctrine.  This  encroachment  is  seemingly  provided  for  when 
it  is  said  by  the  Author  of  this  article  that  opinion  has  its  place  in 
the  form  of  "explanation"  or  "interpretation."  Accordingly 
the  preacher  may  be  supposed  to  declare  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  as  absolute  truth,  knowledge  ;  and  then  to  resort  to  whatever 
opinion,  heathen  or  otherwise,  for  the  "  explanation"  and  "  inter- 
pretation "  of  these  doctrines.  Thus,  though  it  be  said  as  in  this 
article  that  "we  do  not  speak  of  believing  an  opinion,"  that  "  we 
apply  that  term  naturally  to  doctrine,"  yet,  in  explaining  and 
interpreting  doctrine  by  opinion,  it  is  possible  that  as  a  result 
there  would  be  more  belief  in  opinion  than  in  doctrine.  Doctrine 
might  be  confounded  by  opinion.  In  the  abstract  it  might  be 
conceived,  as  stated  in  the  article,  that  "there  is  no  reason  why 
an  opinion  may  not  be  held  clearly,  firmly,  and  honorably,  without 
any  infringement  on  the  province  of  doctrine."  But  opinion 
cannot  be  held  so,  "  honorably,"  if  it  must  have  license  to  domi- 
nate doctrine  by  interpreting  and  explaining  it.  The  Protestant 
view  is  that  the  Scriptures  should  not  be  explained  by  things 
foreign  to  them,  but  that  they  should  be  expounded  in  harmony 
with  their  internal  teaching  ;  that,  in  case  of  any  obscurity,  "  each 
text  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ought  to  be  explained  by  other  and 
clearer  texts."  This  method  treats  the  Scriptures  honorably  and 
makes  their  doctrine  clear  and  certain.  But  the  method  of 
expounding  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  by  uncertain  opinion  con- 
founds them.  The  doctrines  of  Scripture  are  made  subservient 
to  the  extraneous  opinion  of  those  who  give  primal  authority  to 
human  reason,  or  to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  to  the  specula- 
tions of  Deism,  to  the  vagaries  of  that  mysticism  which  rejects 
the  Scriptures  in  whole  or  in  part  and  affirms  an  internal 
revelation  from  God  in  every  man,  or  to  the  platitudes  of 
Pantheism. 

There  is  an  instance  of  confounding  biblical  doctrine  by  phil- 
osophical opinion  in  a  sermon  preached  by  Henry  "Ward  Beecher,  in 
November,  1882,  advocating  what  he  called  "Christian  Pantheism," 
in  which  he  said  that  "  the  whole  march  of  history  is  the  evolution 
of  the  heart  of  God  in  the  world,"  that  "  the  whole  world  is  but 
God's  garment,"  and  that  at  Mars'  Hill  "  the  apostle  Paul  spoke 
authenticating  a  Poem  older  even  than  he  was  preacher,  when  he 
said,  '  The  God  in  whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being' ;  " 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


75 


thus  making  the  apostle  authenticate  the  Pantheism  of  Cleanthes 
the  Stoic,  when  if  Cleanthes  had  been  at  Mars'  Hill  he  would  have 
learned,  in  the  words  of  Conybeare  and  Howson,  that  "  it  was 
no  pantheistic  diffusion  of  power  and  order  of  which  the  Apostle 
spoke,  but  a  living  centre  of  Government  and  love  —  that  the 
world  was  ruled  by  the  providence  of  a  personal  God  —  and  that 
from  the  proudest  philosopher  repentance  and  meek  submission 
were  sternly  exacted."  Now,  as  it  was  claimed  in  Plymouth  Pulpit 
that  St.  Paul  authenticated  the  Pantheism  of  Cleanthes,  it  is  not 
strange  that  this  progressive  Pulpit  should  require  the  American 
Board  to  appoint,  as  missionaries,  men  who  claim  the  right  to 
authenticate  the  Pantheism  of  India  and  China,  and  thus  follow, 
what  is  falsely  claimed  to  be,  the  example  of  St.  Paul.  Nor  is  it 
strange  that  this  should  be  required  by  the  advocates  of  the  New 
theology  at  Andover,  under  the  claim  of  "  the  right  of  opinion." 
The  requirement  goes  to  show  that  both  Pulpit  and  Theological 
Seminary  may  be  sufficiently  rich  in  opinions,  but  poor  in  Chris- 
tian doctrine.  But  when  once  the  distinction  between  doctrine 
and  opinion  is  rightly  made,  this  requirement  is  shown  to  be  a 
piece  of  sophistry.  The  work  of  the  American  Board  is  to  preach 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,  according  to  what  the 
Gospel  itself  claims  as  doctrine,  and  not  what  may  be  any  man's 
mere  opinion  of  the  Gospel :  this  doctrine  as  expounded  in  the 
Gospel,  and  not  what  that  doctrine  may  be  as  interpreted  by 
somebody's  uncertain  opinion  gathered  outside  of  the  province  of 
doctrine.  It  is  all  the  same  whether  such  opinion  comes  assum- 
ing the  logic  of  a  philosophy,  or  whether  it  be  only  the  dream  of 
a  delusive  hypothesis.  In  short,  the  Board  is  justified  in  its  pres- 
ent policy,  on  the  admission  that  opinion  cannot  be  preached, 
for  it  is  the  function  of  the  Board  to  preach  doctrine,  and  not  to 
allow  that  preaching  to  become  entangled  with  "  vain  philosophy  " 
through  the  sophistry  that  claims  an  illegitimate  right  of  opinion.1 
Much  is  said,  by  those  who  claim  this  right  of  opinion,  of  the 
virtues  of  "sincerity"  and  "frankness"  which  they  have  in 
maintaining  the  "  courage  of  their  convictions,"  but  the  utility  of 
such  courage  seems  doubtful  when  associated  with  what,  after  all, 

1  The  article  referred  to  appeared  some  time  after  this  argument  had  been  prepared 
with  the  expectation  that  it  would  be  read  before  the  Board  of  Visitors,  and  is  now 
noticed  for  its  fitness  as  illustration. 


76 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


are  not  real  convictions.  Whatever  latitude  might  be  granted  to 
this  freedom  and  courage  as  being  simple  and  therefore  harmless, 
it  could  not  be  tolerated  in  the  Seminary  because  opposed  to  the 
Creed.  The  claim  that  within  the  Seminary  the  advocates  of 
future  probation  have  as  much  freedom  to  urge  their  unproven 
hypothesis  as  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary  had  to  urge  that  this 
life  furnishes  a  sufficient  probation,  and  to  make  this  a  part  of  the 
Creed,  is  a  false  claim,  legally  and  morally.  Outside  the  Semi- 
nary, and  not  as  professors  within  it,  and  free  from  the  contract 
to  teach  what  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  prescribes,  these  pro- 
fessors might  say,  as  they  do,  respecting  future  probation  :  — 

We  both  demand  liberty  to  hold  it,  and  decline  to  admit  superior  ortho- 
doxy on  the  part  of  those  who  hold  another  opinion,  — 1 

but  to  say  this  while  occupying  professorial  chairs  in  the  Seminary, 
after  having  solemnly  subscribed  to  the  Seminary  Creed,  is,  instead 
of  making  a  demand  for  righteous  liberty,  to  make  the  defiant  dec- 
laration that  in  this  case  they  —  the  professors  —  will  act  contrary 
to  the  restraints  of  both  law  and  morality. 

Morally  it  is  a  false  claim  that,  in  respect  to  future  probation, 
candidates  for  appointment  under  the  American  Board  should  be 
welcomed  without  scrutiny  as  to  their  theological  opinions, 2 
and  thus  pervert  the  American  Board  by  making  of  it  an  instru- 
ment for  publishing  and  promoting  future  probation. 

There  is  no  force  in  the  apology  that  those  who  reverently  claim 
the  right  to  hold  this  hypothesis  will  make  no  bad  use  of  it  among 
the  heathen  if  appointed  by  the  Board,  or  that  they  will  be  silent 
in  respect  to  it  in  their  missionary  work,  for,  if  the  hypothesis  is  to 
be  held  so  impracticable,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive  that  a 
truly  reverent  mind  should  regard  it,  under  such  conditions,  as  of 
the  least  consequence.  It  is  also  inconceivable  that  a  man  should 
be  reverently  strenuous  for  leave  to  hold  this  hypothesis,  unless 
with  the  secret  conviction  of  its  truth,  and  the  conviction  of  its 
practical  utility,  such  as  to  warrant  his  teaching  it  on  the  first 
opportunity.  Suppose  that  a  man  with  these  convictions  were 
appointed  a  missionary  to  the  heathen,  and  should  put  his  convic- 
tions in  practice  :  it  may  be  asked  of  what  advantage  it  would  be 
toward  securing  the  conversion  of  the  heathen.    When  in  the 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  109.      *  Ibid.  p.  18S. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


77 


seventh  century  king  Radbocl  represented  to  the  missionary  that 
he  was  prepared  to  receive  Christian  baptism,  "but  was  first  desir- 
ous to  learn  whether  on  arriving  at  heaven,  he  should  find  there 
his  forefathers  also,"  the  bishop,  undoubtedly,  made  a  mistake 
in  telling  him  so  positively  that  his  forefathers,  "having  died 
without  baptism,  had  assuredly  been  condemned  to  hell."  To 
this  Radbod  said:  "What  business  have  I  then  with  a  few  poor 
people  in  heaven ;  I  prefer  to  abide  by  the  religion  of  my 
fathers."  1  It  is  easy  enough  to  see  that  if  this  bishop  had  been 
a  believer  in  future  probation,  and  had  assured  Radbod  of  it  to 
relieve  his  mind  in  respect  to  his  fathers,  Radbod  would  still  have 
been  willing  to  cast  his  lot  with  them,  and  trust  to  the  future  pro- 
bation for  himself.  In  consistency  with  the  doctrine  that  this 
life  furnishes  a  sufficieut  probation  as  held  by  the  founders  of 
the  American  Board,  Radbod  could  not  have  made  this  pretext 
for  rejecting  Christianity. 

In  general,  whatever  might  be  gained  in  securing  an  apparently 
increased  number  of  converts  among  the  heathen  by  carrying  to 
them  the  notion  of  future  probation,  with  its  affiliations  with 
Eastern  Pantheism,  it  must  result  in  paganizing  Christianity 
instead  of  Christianizing  paganism.  Missionary  societies  that 
would  carry  the  Gospel  of  Christ  to  the  heathen  are  not  called  on 
to  permit  their  missionaries  to  compromise  the  Gospel  by  any  con- 
cessions to  heathenism.  There  was  a  sufficient  trial  of  this 
method  by  the  Jesuits  in  the  seventeenth  century.  They  inter- 
preted the  doctrines  of  paganism  so  as  to  soften  and  diminish 
their  opposition  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  at  least  in  appear- 
ance. They  used  all  their  art  and  zeal  to  persuade  the  Indians 
that  there  was  a  great  conformity  between  their  ancient  theology 
and  the  new  religion  they  were  called  on  to  embrace,  in  which 
they  made  a  false  representation  of  both.  They  gave  a  spurious 
account  of  the  ancient  religion  of  the  Chinese,  representing  that 
the  teaching  of  Confucius  differed  almost  in  nothing  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  had  been  known 
and  worshiped  in  their  nation  ages  ago,  which  they  could  have 
done  only  on  the  pantheistic  notion  of  the  Logos,  which  prevailed 
in  heathendom  from  "the  shores  of  the  Yellow  Sea  to  the  Illis- 
sus,"  as  related  by  Milman  and  referred  to  in  the  discussion  of 

:  Neander,  vol.  iii,  p.  44. 


78 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


the  thirteenth  specification.  This  was  understood  by  the  Domini- 
cans, who,  in  opposition  to  the  Jesuits,  affirmed  that  the  ancient 
philosophy  of  the  Chinese  was  full  of  blasphemy  and  impiety, 
and  that,  in  respect  of  the  Being  of  God,  "it  confounded  the 
Divine  nature  with  that  of  the  universe."  1  As  future  probation 
involves  this  confounding  of  the  Divine  Nature  through  pantheis- 
tic Christology,  its  approbation  in  the  smallest  degree  by  the 
American  Board  were  to  inaugurate  the  missionary  policy  of  the 
Jesuits,  a  policy  not  likely  to  receive  the  support  of  intelligent, 
reverent,  and  devout  Protestants,  notwithstanding  the  example  of 
Clement  in  adopting  the  "  doctrine  of  a  progressive  development 
and  course  of  purification  after  death,"  so  as  to  furnish  some 
ground  of  consolation  to  heathen  converts  "  with  respect  to  the 
fate  of  their  ancestors  who  had  died  without  faith  in  the  Gos- 
pel."2 Since  Clement's  doctrine  was  derived  from  heathen  phil- 
osophy, while  the  same  is  true  of  Origeu,  who,  says  the  historian, 
"  everywhere  shows  a  disposition  to  accommodate  Christian  doc- 
trines to  heathen  philosophy,  and  to  make  the  difference  appear 
as  small  as  possible,"  3  thus  furnishing  an  example  for  the  mis- 
sionary policy  of  the  Jesuits,  as  well  as  a  desirable  authority  for 
the  professorial  authors  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy";  and  in 
view  of  the  struggles  of  Protestantism  with  Pantheism,  and  above 
all  in  view  of  the  spirit  of  the  Founders  of  this  "  Sacred  Semi- 
nary "  —  as  they  loved  to  call  it  —  and  the  foundation  upon  which 
they  built  it,  and  the  missionary  use  for  which  they  designed  it; 
in  view  of  all  this  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that  any  "  thinking 
mind "  impelled  by  purity  of  moral  purpose  should  presume,  in 
this  Seminary,  to  demand  liberty  to  hold  the  hypothesis  of  future 
probation,  and  to  use  it  as  an  instrument  to  dominate  the  Amer- 
ican Board  in  the  interest  of  this  hypothesis. 

That  theosophists  in  this  country,  who  are  also  pantheists, 
denying  that  the  Scriptures  are  a  divine  revelation,  should  claim 
to  have  immediate  communications  from  God  through  divine  illu- 
mination within  their  own  personal  consciousness,  and  as  spiritu- 
alists adopt  a  phase  of  the  old  Pythagorean  doctrine  of  the  trans- 
migration of  souls,  should  also  find  a  charm  in  Esoteric  Buddh- 
ism and  consider  it  an  improvement  upon  Christianity,  is  not 

1  Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  v,  pp.  8,  22,  28.  2 Meander,  vol.  i,  pp.  655,  656.  3  Bib. 
Repos.,  1834,  p.  45. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


79 


remarkable.  But  when  it  is  attempted  to  improve  Christianity  in 
giving  it  better  adaptation  for  Christian  missions  by  compromising 
it  with  the  speculations  of  theosophy  or  of  Buddhism,  and  this 
by  professors  in  a  Seminary  whose  Creed  they  solemnly  accept  in 
its  palpable  teaching  that  the  only  and  sufficient  probation  is  in 
this  life  ;  this  is  too  remarkable  for  explanation  if  it  must  be 
maintained  that  the  authors  of  this  attempted  improvement  are 
strictly  men  of  sound  learning,  wisdom,  and  honor.  In  view  of 
what  is  called  theological  progress  in  the  nineteenth  century,  it  is 
a  grave  question  whether  that,  as  theosophy  is  effecting  a  union 
with  "  Esoteric  Buddhism,"  and  the  Pantheism  of  the  West  is 
finding  its  counterpart  in  the  Pantheism  of  the  East,  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  this  Seminary  must,  in  the  craze  for  union,  be  twisted 
into  this  unity  in  order  to  become  most  effective  in  the  propaga- 
tion of  Christian  missions ;  whether  the  old  experiment  of  the 
Greek  theologians  must  now  be  repeated  of  attempting  to  carry 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  to  the  heathen  and  make  of  it  a  missionary 
success  by  receiving  in  turn  from  the  heathen  their  pantheistic 
philosophy  in  order  to  incorporate  it  into  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  Church. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  this  transaction  is  an  infringement  on 
the  rights  of  various  classes  of  people.  "  In  the  eye  of  the 
law,"  says  Dr.  Park,  "  the  Andover  Seminary  is  '  a  charity'  for 
certain  classes  of  men  ;  and  its  funds  cannot  be  legally  diverted 
from  the  interests  of  these  classes  to  promote  the  interest  of 
opposing  classes."  Among  other  classes  mentioned,  "Andover 
Seminary,"  continues  Dr.  Park,  "  is  a  charity  for  all  those  friends 
of  Foreign  missions,  Congregational  or  Presbyterian,  who  may 
desire  that  young  men  be  excited  to  missionary  zeal  by  the  par- 
ticular system  of  doctrines,  and  by  the  particular  doctrines  of 
the  system  taught  in  the  Creed."  1  Now,  this  class  has  an  inter- 
est in,  and  a  legal  right  to,  the  benefits  of  this  charity.  Any 
measure  that  deprives  them  of  these  benefits  is  an  infringement 
of  their  legal  rights.  Without  considering  these  rights,  the  per- 
version of  the  doctrines  of  the  Seminary  Creed  is  a  grave  offence, 
but  that  offence  is  aggravated  by  its  action  in  depriving  this  class 
of  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights.  It  is  no  answer  to  say  that 
this  class  may  be  small  in  comparison  with  the  larger  number  who 

'Dr.  Edwards  A.  Park,  on  The  Associate  Creed,  p.  41. 


80 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Comiilaint. 


are  pleased  with  the  perversion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Seminary, 
—  even  if  that  number  were  large,  —  for  the  rights  of  this  class, 
however  small  it  might  be,  comparatively,  do  not  rest  on  the 
caprice  of  majorities,  or  the  shifting  moods  of  popular  sentiment, 
because  they  are  guaranteed  by  the  statutes  of  the  Seminary 
which  coustitute  it  as  a  charity  in  their  interest.  Any  attempt  to 
raise  a  majority  among  the  churches  against  this  interest,  or  to 
fortify  the  perversion  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Seminary  in  its 
bearing  upon  missions  by  building  up  a  constituency  of ,  the 
churches  in  its  favor  through  securing  their  acceptance  of  pastors 
committed  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  future  probation,  with  the  view 
also  to  gain  a  controlling  influence  in  the  administration  of  the 
American  Board,  may  compare  well  with  the  low  scheming  of 
political  tactics,  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  an  aggravated  offence 
against  that  law  which  guarantees  to  a  class  protection  in  their 
rights  independent  of  all  such  scheming  and  agitation.  Besides, 
this  scheming  is  in  contravention  of  the  declaration  required  of 
every  person  elected  a  Professor  in  this  Seminary  in  the  words  : 

I  will  consult  the  good  of  this  institution,  and  the  peace  of  the  churches 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  on  all  occasions.1 

When  such  a  contravention  of  law  and  of  rights  is  proposed 
under  the  cry  for  freedom,  the  counterpart  of  that  freedom,  how- 
ever fascinating  the  cry,  is  found  in  the  cry  for  freedom  made  by 
the  pantheistic  Libertines  in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
who,  denying  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  declared 
that  they  were  guided  by  a  higher  revelation,  an  inward  light,  and 
that  consequently  all  civil  and  ecclesiastical  order  was  not  only 
useless  but  at  variance  with  Christian  Freedom.2 

Thus,  Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen  of  The  Reverend  and 
Honorable  Board  of  Visitors,  I  think  that  I  have  shown  that  the 
Respondent,  Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  d.d.,  does  hold,  main- 
tain, and  inculcate,  in  opposition  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary, 
as  alleged  in  the  twelfth  specification,  to  wit:  "that  Christian 
missions  are  not  to  be  supported  and  conducted  on  the  ground 
that  men  who  know  not  Christ  are  in  danger  of  perishing  forever, 
and  must  perish  forever  unless  saved  in  this  life  "  ;  and  I  claim  to 
have  shown  this  by  reference  to  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  a  book 

i  Wood's  History,  p.  293.      *  Bib.  Sac.  vol.  ii,  p.  737. 


Argument  on  Twelfth  Complaint. 


81 


for  which  the  Kespondent  is  responsible  as  its  editor,  composer, 
and  publisher. 

Besides,  sustaining  the  complaints  which  I  have  argued  on  this 
occasion,  I  claim  that  I  have  also  sustained  the  seventh,  eighth, 
and  tenth  complaints  against  the  Kespondent,  argued  before  your 
Honorable  Board  on  a  former  occasion. 

In  concluding  my  service  as  one  of  the  complainants  in  behalf 
of  those  Alumni  of  the  Seminary  whom  I  represent,  it  gives  me 
pleasure  to  express  my  satisfaction  in  submitting  the  issues  of 
this  case  to  your  decision,  for  I  am  persuaded  that  you,  Gentle- 
men, are  fully  sensible  of  the  responsibility  resting  upon  you  in 
having  it  in  your  power  to  preserve  this  Sacred  Seminary  intact  as 
constituted  by  its  Founders,  and  that  if  it  shall  not  be  so  pre- 
served, then  the  responsibility  is  also  yours. 

Finally,  what  I  have  desired  for  myself  in  the  service  rendered, 
may  I  not  also  with  equal  fervor  desire  for  you:  that  the  Lord 
may  grant  you  help,  such,  that  in  coming  to  a  decision  in  the  case 
now  pending,  you  shall  conform  to  his  righteous  will,  and  receive 
from  him  finally  the  plaudit, 

Well  done,  good  and  faithful. 


ARGUMENTS 

OF 

REV.  JOSHUA  W.  WELLMAN,  D.D. 


S3 


INTRODUCTION. 


Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  —  The 
supreme  question  in  the  Andover  Case  is  a  moral  question.  It  is 
this  :  —  Is  it  right  for  a  Professor  in  Andover  Seminary,  once  in 
every  five  years  to  declare  solemnly  and  religiously  his  belief  in 
the  theology  formulated  in  the  Andover  Creed,  at  the  same  time 
solemnly  and  religiously  promising  to  "maintain  and  inculcate" 
that  theology,  and  then  during  the  intervening  period  of  five 
years  "maintain  and  inculcate"  another  and  a  so-called  "new- 
theology"  which  antagonizes  the  said  Creed?  In  other  words, 
is  it  a  righteous  course  of  action  for  a  Professor  in  Andover 
Seminary,  while  supported  by  its  funds  and  aided  by  its  prestige, 
to  defend  and  teach,  not  the  theology  of  its  Creed,  but  his  own 
substitute  for  it,  called  by  him  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  to 
do  this,  too,  when  he  has  voluntarily  placed  himself  under  impera- 
tive and  sacred  obligations  to  teach  exactly  the  theology  of  the 
Seminary  Creed,  and  to  teach  nothing  opposed  to  that  Creed  ? 

This  question  in  morals  does  not  seem  to  be  a  very  hard  one  to 
understand,  nor  a  very  difficult  one  to  answer.  Yet  this  is  the 
transcendent  question  in  the  now  famous  Andover  Case.  True,  it 
implies  a  second  question,  which  is  strictly  theological.  But  the 
moral  question  is  supreme.  The  theological  question  is  subsidi- 
ary, yet  must  of  necessity  be  investigated  and  decided,  in  order 
that  a  true  decision  of  the  moral  question  may  be  reached. 

The  Theological  Question. 

The  theological  question,  however,  is  not  primarily  whether 
the  "  new  theology,"  called  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  is  true  or 
false.  Nor  is  it  whether  "  the  Andover  theology,"  that  is,  the 
theology  of  the  Andover  Creed,  is  true  or  false.  These  questions 
in  themselves  are  of  high  moment,  and  at  a  proper  time  and 
place  ought  to  be  discussed  and  settled,  and  they  doubtless  will 
be ;  but  they  are  not  the  primary  theological  questions  in  the 
Andover  Case.- 

The  theological  question  which  is  now  before  your  Reverend  and 


86 


Introduction. 


Honorable  Board,  and  to  which  your  Board  alone  can  give  a  final 
and  authoritative  answer,  is  this  :  —  Whether  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  is  so  identical  with,  or  in  such  harmony  with,  the  theology 
of  the  Andover  Creed  that  it  can  be  held  and  taught  by  an  Andover 
Professor  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  solemn  declaration  and 
promise  he  has  made  in  taking  the  Creed,  and  without  any  viola- 
lation  of  the  unalterable  Constitution  and  Statutes  provided  by 
the  Founders  of  the  Seminary?  If  the  decision  shall  be  that 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  not  identical  nor  in  harmony  with 
the  Seminary  Creed,  but  is  in  irrepressible  conflict  with  it,  then 
comes  of  necessity  the  irrefutable  answer  to  the  great  moral  ques- 
tion. And  that  answer  is  this :  that  it  is  a  flagrant  wrong,  and 
if  consciously  and  wilfully  persisted  in,  it  is  deliberate  dishon- 
esty, to  maintain  and  inculcate  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  on  the 
Andover  Foundations.  In  other  words,  the  Andover  question, 
which  is  being  argued  before  you,  though  twofold,  is  supremely 
a  moral  question.  And  this  high  moral  question  cannot  be 
evaded  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  by  any  jugglery  of  words, 
or  by  diverting  your  attention  to  personalities,  literary  criticisms, 
and  questions  of  personal  liberty,  nor  by  wasting  time  in  raising 
and  discussing  through  mouths  and  years  any  other  trivial  side- 
issues,  but  must  be  faced  squarely  and  answered  clearly  and 
unequivocally.  Nor  can  such  a  momentous  moral  issue  be  dis- 
missed on  the  ground  of  some  technical  informality  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  your  Board.  No  honorable  man,  accused  of  ques- 
tionable conduct,  will  deign  to  take  advantage  of  such  informali- 
ties for  one  moment,  but  will  demand  as  imperatively  as  the  com- 
plainants do,  that,  without  hindrance  or  obstruction  of  any  kind, 
the  issue  shall  be  honestly  presented  and  honestly  met,  and  that 
then  a  decision  shall  be  rendered  without  fear  or  favor  upon  the 
merits  of  the  case.  Until  this  is  done  the  Andover  trouble  can- 
not be  ended.  Such  moral  issues  will  never  down  until  they  are 
settled  in  accordance  with  truth  aud  righteousness. 

No  Charge  of  Conscious  Dishonesty. 

We  wish,  however,  to  say  at  the  outset,  and  once  for  all,  that 
we  do  not  affirm  or  charge  that  the  defendant  in  this  case  is 
conscious  of  wrong  doing.  We  know  nothing  about  his  con- 
sciousness or  his  conscience.    But  what  we  do  say  is  this,  that  if 


Introduction. 


87 


he  is  holding  and  teaching  speculations  or  hypotheses,  dogmas  or 
doctrines  which  are  diametrically  opposed  to,  and  subversive  of, 
doctrines  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  of  consistent  Calvinism, 
which  he  certainly  has  promised,  on  his  honor  as  a  man  of  truth 
and  a  Christian,  to  "  maintain  and  inculcate,"  then,  whatever  his 
own  conscience  may  say,  by  the  common  standard  of  morals,  or 
at  the  bar  of  public  conscience,  he  must  and  will  stand  condemned 
as  guilty  of  wrong  and  dishonorable  action. 

Now  how  far  have  we  progressed  in  the  examination  and  de- 
termination of  these  questions?  What  is  the  present  status  of 
the  Andover  Case  ? 

Misrepresentations  . 

It  has  been  said  repeatedly,  in  public  and  in  private,  by  men 
who  were  supposed  to  speak  with  authority,  and  who  therefore 
should  have  spoken  the  truth,  that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  rendered  in  October,  1891,  finished  the  Andover  trial;  that 
by  that  decision  all  questions  in  this  controversy  were  settled ; 
that  all  litigation  was  ended,  and  that  full  freedom  had  at  last 
been  gained  for,  and  even  guaranteed  to,  the  new-departure  Pro- 
fessors in  this  Seminary.  And  woe  has  been  denounced  upon  any 
man  who  should  ever  again -attempt  to  deprive  these  Professors  of 
the  great  and  priceless  freedom  which  they  have  thus  won. 

No  New  Freedom  Gained. 

These  repeated  misrepresentations  would  deserve  no  notice, 
but  for  this,  that  such  loud  and  triumphant  language  implies,  if  it 
implies  anything,  that  the  new-departure  Professors  are  now 
possessed  of  some  priceless  freedom  which  they  did  not  have 
previous  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that  by  that  de- 
cision they  were  released  from  some  unjust  and  cruel  bondage  to 
creed  or  statute,  to  visitorial  or  other  power,  under  which  they 
previously  suffered. 

But  we  venture  to  affirm  that  these  Professors  are  now  in  pos- 
session of  no  more  freedom  in  this  Seminary  than  they  were 
before  the  decision  of  the  Court  was  given.  "What  is  this  great 
freedom  which  it  is  claimed  they  have  gained  ?  Freedom  to  do 
what?  They  have  not  a  particle  more  liberty  to  break  their 
promises  or  to  violate  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the 


88 


Introduction. 


Seminary  than  they  had  before ;  not  a  particle  more  liberty  to 
introduce  a  new  or  an  old  theology  which  contradicts  in  any  par- 
ticular that  of  the  Creed.  They  have  gained  from  the  Court  no 
freedom  whatever  to  resist  the  authority  of  the  Board  of  Visitors 
or  to  defy  its  decisions,  although  at  vast  cost  to  the  Seminary 
treasury  the  most  strenuous  and  prolonged  efforts  were  made  to 
obtain  this  freedom.  On  the  other  hand,  they  now  have  just  the 
freedom,  no  more  and  no  less  than  that  which  they  declared  them- 
selves perfectly  satisfied  with  when  they  voluntarily  accepted  their 
professorships,  subscribed  to  the  Creed,  and  promised  that  they 
would  "religiously  conform  to  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the 
Seminary."  More  freedom  than  this  they  have  no  moral  or  legal 
right  to  demand.  If  any  professor  in  this  Seminary,  under  hon- 
est convictions,  or  in  conscience,  feels  constrained  to  promulgate 
doctrines  and  speculations  which  antagonize  the  Andover  Creed, 
then  every  dictate  of  common  honor  and  honesty,  to  say  nothing 
of  Christian  principle  and  obligation,  requires  him  to  vacate  his 
chair  at  once,  and  go  where  he  can  teach  his  recently  adopted 
beliefs  and  theories  without  any  breaking  of  promises  or  any 
perversion  of  trust  funds. 

Decision  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

We  also  venture  to  affirm,  in  opposition  to  repeated  and  public 
declarations  to  the  contrary,  that  the  recent  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  has  not  finished  the  Andover  Case  ;  that  it  has  not 
ended  litigation,  if  any  more  shall  be  found  necessary  to  a  faith- 
ful execution  of  this  great  and  sacred  trust ;  that  it  has  not 
settled  any  of  the  great  theological  and  moral  questions  which 
are  at  issue  in  this  case  ;  and  that  it  has  not  vindicated  Professor 
Smyth  as  to  a  single  charge  made  against  him.  So  far  is  this 
Andover  trial  from  being  finished,  that  all  the  amended  charges 
which  the  complainants  preferred  against  Professor  Egbert  C. 
Smyth,  d.d.,  in  1886,  are  still  pending,  and  all  the  theological 
questions  connected  with  these  charges  are  still  before  the  Visitors 
awaiting  their  decision. 

Eight  of  the  particular  charges,  as  the  complainants  think, 
were  proved  by  the  evidence  and  arguments  presented  at  the 
commencement  of  the  trial  of  Professor  Smyth  in  December, 
1886.    Your  Reverend  and  Honorable  Board,  Mr.  President,  also 


Introduction. 


89 


deemed  this  proof,  in  the  case  of  at  least  three  particular  charges, 
ample  and  decisive,  and  consequently  removed  Professor  Smyth 
from  his  professorship  in  Andover  Seminary. 

Cause  of  Delay  in  Legal  Proceedings. 

Why,  then,  this  prolonged  continuance  of  the  Andover  Case? 
Not  simply  the  appeal  which  Professor  Smyth  saw  fit  to  make 
from  your  decision  to  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  in  this  Com- 
monwealth, but  chiefly  the  large  and  needless  accumulation  of 
side-issues  raised  by  the  Professor  and  by  his  supporters,  the 
Board  of  Trustees,  is  responsible  for  the  long  and  costly  continu- 
ations of  this  trial,  extended,  as  it  already  has  been,  over  nearly 
six  years.  Had  it  been  the  dominant  purpose  of  all  parties  con- 
cerned to  try  this  case  upon  its  merits,  so  as  to  ascertain  what 
can,  and  what  can  not,  be  rightfully  held  and  taught  by  Profess- 
ors on  these  Andover  Foundations,  and  had  it  been  the  high  aim 
of  both  the  Boards  which  are  intrusted  with  the  administration  of 
this  Seminary  to  be  truly  and  greatly  helpful  to  each  other,  that 
so  they  might  the  more  effectually  guard  these  Foundations 
"  against  all  perversion,  or  the  smallest  avoidance  "  of  the  true 
design  of  the  Founders,  according  to  the  Founders'  statutory  re- 
quirement, the  whole  trial  might  have  been  completed  in  less  than 
one  sixth  —  perhaps  in  one  twelfth  —  of  the  time  which  has  already 
been  consumed,  and  at  the  cost  of  only  a  small  fraction  of  the 
more  than  two  scores  of  thousands  of  dollars  which  have  now 
been  expended. 

The  present  resumption  of  the  trial,  however,  by  the  Board  of 
Visitors,  and  your  summons  to  the  Complainants  to  appear  before 
you  at  another  hearing,  afford  us  opportunity  to  emphasize  some 
of  the  evidence  and  arguments  already  presented,  to  add  other 
evidence  and  arguments,  and  to  present  proof  of  some  charges 
in  the  Amended  Complaint  which  were  not  substantiated  by  argu- 
ment at  the  trial  before  your  Board  in  1886. 


I. 


THE   PARTICULAR  COMPLAINTS. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  specific  charges 
found  in  the  "Amended  Complaint"  which  is  before  the  Board 
of  Visitors. 

Criticisms  Presented  by  Professor  Smyth. 

The  defendant  has  severely  criticized  the  written  form  in 
which  these  charges  with  the  specifications  under  them  were  made. 
He  has  affirmed  that  they  "are  not  certain  or  definite,"  "are 
fatally  defective,"  and  "  too  indefinite  to  require  or  enable"  him 
to  answer  them.  We  have  no  need,  Mr.  President,  to  consume 
your  time  in  demonstrating  the  groundlessness  of  these  criticisms  ; 
and  this  for  two  reasons.  First,  we  are  not  here  before  you-  to 
engage  in  any  such  petty  literary  discussions ;  and,  secondly,  the 
defendant  himself  long  before  he  was  through  with  his  argument 
made  at  the  beginning  of  this  trial,  gave  abundant  evidence  that 
he  understood  perfectly  well  all  the  charges,  both  the  general  and 
the  particular,  which  the  complainants  endeavored  to  substantiate  ; 
and  thus  he  unwittingly  confessed  that  his  strictures  upon  the 
form  and  language  of  the  charges  were  fictitious  and  unwarranted. 

He  has  also  animadverted  repeatedly  and  at  much  length  upon 
the  manner  in  which  citations  were  made  by  the  complainants 
from  the  writings  of  the  accused  professors.  It  Is  true  that  some 
typographical  mistakes,  and  perhaps  a  few  other  minor  errors, 
were  not  corrected  in  the  proofs.  When  copies  of  the  citations 
which  were  made  by  the  two  complainants  now  before  you  went 
from  their  hands,  all  pmissions  of  words,  phrases,  and  sentences 
had  been  scrupulously  and  properly  indicated ;  and  in  other 
respects  it  is  believed  the  extracts  from  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  and  other  writings  had  been  correctly  copied.  But  for 
some  reason  no  proofs  were  returned  to  the  complainants ;  and 
when  the  "Amended  Complaint"  appeared  in  print,  the  proper 
indications  of  omissions  in  some  of  the  extracts  were  lacking, 
and  a  few  other  mistakes  were  noticed,  none  of  them,  however,  of 

90 


Tlie  Particular  Complaints. 


91 


more  importance  than  some  which  we  have  noticed  in  the  cita- 
tions made  by  the  accused  professors  themselves.  The  quotations 
were  not  "  unfair,"  as  is  charged,  and  "misleading,"  exceptso  far 
as  they  had  been  made  so  in  the  original  writings  from  which  they 
had  been  copied.  Nor  were  they  "twisted"  and  "garbled,"  as 
the  defendant  charges.  They  were  intended  to  be  made  fairly 
and  accurately,  and,  with  the  exceptions  already  referred  to,  for 
which  the  complainants  were  not  responsible,  it  is  believed  they 
were  so  made.  We  deny  the  right  of  the  defendant  to  dictate  to 
the  complainants  the  length  of  their  extracts  or  the  order  in 
which  they  should  be  arranged.  There  is  no  orderly  succession 
in  the  subjects  discussed  in  the  book  entitled  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy." They  are  thrown  into  the  volume  in  a  jumble.  And 
often  there  is  no  such  orderly  succession  of  thoughts  in  the  sepa- 
rate articles  themselves  as  to  make  it  possible  for  the  complain- 
ants to  make  extracts  which  shall  have  any  vital  relation  to  one 
another,  unless  they  jump  "backwards  and  foiwards."  If  the 
professor  would  have  our  quotations  follow  the  order  of  numbers 
on  his  pages,  he  must  have  some  system  in  his  theology.  Now 
there  is  none.  In  each  separate  article,  also,  his  views  must  have 
expression  in  some  orderly  arrangement,  and  not  in  mere  miscel- 
laneous remarks,  flung  together  in  such  pellmell  fashion  that  one 
can  about  as  well  begin  at  the  end  of  the  article  and  read  back- 
wards as  at  the  beginning  and  read  forwards.  Moreover,  if  the 
defendant  and  his  associate  professors  would  have  extracts  from 
their  writings  appear  orderly  and  lucid,  there  are  some  other 
things  they  must  do ;  instead  of  bringing  laborious  criticisms 
upon  trivial  literary  matters  into  a  grave  discussion  involving 
interests  of  immeasurable  moment  to  the  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth  and  in  heaven,  they  must  give  some  attention  to  their  own 
thinking  and  statements,  and  make  them  clear;  and  must  give 
some  lucid  definitions  of  the  meaning  which  they  attach  to  theolog- 
ical terms,  and  of  the  doctrines  which  they  believe  and  advocate, 
so  as  to  make  it  utterly  impossible  for  them  to  be  on  both  sides 
of  a  great  theological  issue  in  one  and  the  same  discussion,  and 
sometimes  on  neither  side  —  so  also  as  to  make  it  utterly  needless 
for  them,  when  sharply  arraigned  for  their  quick  theological 
somersaults  and  gyrations,  to  make  the  plea  that  they  them- 
selves are  living  on  such  a  lofty  plane  of  spirituality  and  ability 


92 


The  Particular  Complaints. 


that  they  do  not  expect  to  be  understood  by  those  who  are  living 
on  a  vastly  lower  plane  of  spirituality  and  have  vastly  inferior 
ability. 

The  defendant  makes  other  solemn  criticisms  upon  such  petty 
matters  as  the  use  of  a  capital  letter  or  two,  and  of  a  few  con- 
junctions. But,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  we  are  ashamed  to  take 
up  your  time  in  replying  to  them.  We  have  alluded  to  these 
frivolous  strictures  partly  because  they  occupy  such  large  space 
in  the  professor's  defence  of  himself  and  of  his  theology  and 
partly  because  we  wish  to  hold  up  for  public  condemnation  the 
introduction  of  them  into  this  serious  discussion,  and  the  animus 
which  they  unmistakably  reveal.  They  disclose  a  sad  failure  to 
appreciate  the  gravity  of  this  trial,  the  sacredness  and  the  immen- 
sity of  the  interests  which  are  at  stake. 


II. 


FIRST    PARTICULAR  COMPLAINT. 

Our  first  particular  complaint,  under  the  fourth  general  charge 
is :  that  Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  in  opposition  to  the  Creed 
and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  "holds,  maintains,  and  inculcates 
that  the  Bible  is  not  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its  religious 
teachings." 

When  the  defendant  subscribed  to  the  Seminary  Creed  he 
declared:  "  I  believe  .  .  .  that  the  "Word  of  God,  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  is  the  only  perfect 
rule  of  faith  and  practice."  He  also  solemnly  promised  that  he 
would  "  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed" 
in  this  part,  and  in  all  other  parts  of  the  Creed.  Our  present 
complaint  is  that  he  holds  doctrines  which  contradict  the  state- 
ments of  the  Creed  respecting  the  Scriptures ;  and  also  that  he 
has  broken  his  promise,  in  that  he  does  not  maintain  and  inculcate 
the  creed-doctrine  of  sacred  Scripture  as  he  solemnly  promised 
he  would  do  ;  but  on  the  contrary  is  maintaining  and  inculcating 
views  respecting  the  Bible  which  are  opposed  to  those  expressed 
in  the  Creed. 

This  Charge  Already  Sustained  by  the  Visitors. 

This  complaint  has  already  been  substantiated,  before  your 
Eeverend  and  Honorable  Board,  by  evidence  and  argument ;  and 
your  Board  lias  decided  that  the  charge  is  sustained.  This  charge 
thus  sustained  was  one  of  the  grounds  on  which  your  Board 
removed  Professor  Smyth  from  his  professorship  in  this  Seminary. 
The  evidence  and  argument  upon  this  charge  are  still  before  you 
and  as  they  are  in  printed  form  there  is  no  occasion  for  repeating 
them  at  this  time. 

Permit  us  now  to  present  some  additional  facts  and  considera- 
tions, which,  we  trust,  will  be  found  to  be  strongly  confirmative  of 
the  arguments  already  presented. 

93 


94 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


This  Charge  not  Ruled  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

1.  This  charge  stands  to-day  unrefuted.  Its  truth  has  not  been 
impugned  by  the  recent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The 
Court  did  not  rule  on  this  charge,  or  on  any  other  charge  presented 
by  the  complainants  to  the  Visitors.  That  part  of  the  de- 
cision of  the  Board  of  Visitors  which  removed  Professor  Smyth 
from  office  the  court  set  aside  solely  on  the  ground  of  a  mere 
technical  informality  in  the  proceedings,  which  informality  was 
that  the  Visitors  did  not  accede  "  to  the  application  of  the  Board 
of  Trustees  to  appear  and  be  heard."  The  court  did  not  touch 
upon  anything  else  in  the  decision  of  the  Visitors.  It  did  not  rule 
upon  one  of  the  theological  or  moral  questions  which  have  been 
at  issue  in  the  Andover  Case.  Some  learned  writers  for  daily 
papers  and  some  learned  speakers  at  dinners  given  by  the  Trus- 
tees have  apparently  understood  that  every  theological  question 
and  every  moral  question  and  all  other  questions  that  have  been 
raised  in  the  Andover  trouble  were  ruled  upon  and  determined  by 
the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  iu  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachu- 
setts, in  its  decision  on  the  Andover  Case  rendered  in  October, 
1891,  whereas  not  one  of  those  theological  and  moral  questions 
was  even  considered,  still  less  decided,  by  that  court.  For  in- 
stance, all  that  part  of  the  decision  of  the  Visitors  in  which  they 
declared  that  the  particular  charge  we  are  now  considering  and 
two  other  charges  were  sustained  by  the  evidence  and  arguments 
presented  by  the  complainants,  and  in  which  the}7  consequently 
held  that  Professor  Smyth  "  maintains  and  inculcates  beliefs  in- 
consistent with  and  repugnant  to  the  Creed  "  of  the  Seminary  — 
all  that  part  of  the  decision  of  the  Visitors  the  court  did  not  rule 
upon,  and  did  not  consider,  and  therefore  this  particular  charge 
which  we  have  in  hand,  for  all  that  the  court  said,  is  true  now.  It 
stands  to-day  unchallenged  by  the  court. 

This  Charge  not  Refuted  by  Professor  Smyth. 
Nor,  again,  has  this  charge  been  refuted  by  the  defendant. 
He  has  denied  it.  He  denied  it  at  the  opening  of  this  trial  years 
ago.  He  denies  it  now.  He  has  denied  with  great  emphasis, 
and  over  and  over,  that  any  or  all  of  the  citations  from  The 
Andover  Review,  and  from  the  book,  "Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
prove  the  charge.    He  has  denied  that  4,a  scintilla  of  evidence," 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


95 


to  use  his  own  term,  has  been  produced  which  confirms  the  com- 
plaint. But  vehement  denials  repeated  over  and  over  do  not 
refute  the  charge.    A  million  of  them  would  not  refute  it. 

He  has  also  presented  to  your  Board  what  is  ostensibly  an 
argument  in  refutation  of  this  charge.  As  printed  in  the  book 
entitled  "  The  Andover  Defence,"  it  covers  ten  and  one-half  pages  ; 
but  by  far  the  larger  part  of  it  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
this  particular  charge.  His  heated  questions  about  the  relation 
of  the  citations  to  the  complaint,  all  his  laborious  criticisms  upon 
the  manner,  form,  and  order  in  which  the  citations  were  made, 
all  his  mournful  citations  from  some  ancient  work  about  the 
difficulties  and  discouragement  of  an  English  bishop  who  lived 
two  centuries  ago,  and  all  his  quotations  from  Professor  Stuart 
upon  a  large  variety  of  subjects — all  these  things  no  more  show 
that  this  particular  charge  has  not  been  proved  to  be  true,  and  is 
not  true,  than  they  show  that  the  brilliant  planet  Mars  has  not 
been  proved  to  be  red  and  is  not  red. 

"A  New  Notion  of  the  Bible." 

2.  According  to  an  editorial  in  The  Andover  Review  for  April, 
1886,  —  an  editorial  already  put  into  this  case, — "Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  which  is  the  defendant's  new  theology,  and  the  only 
theology  he  now  espouses  and  defends,  has  among  its  treasured 
discoveries  and  speculations  "a  new  notion  of  the  Bible."  And 
this  "  new  notion  of  the  Bible"  is  such  that  if  a  pastor,  especially 
a  young  pastor,  who  has  accepted  it,  and  is  fascinated  with  it, 
should  be  too  eager  to  have  it  take  possession  of  the  minds  of  his 
people,  and  should  blurt  it  out  too  frankly  and  inconsiderately,  it 
would  almost  surely  "  wound  religious  feeling,"  produce  revulsion 
in  the  minds  of  some  of  "the  most  valuable  members  of  his 
congregation,"  and  jeopardize  pastoral  relations.  Still  "  the  new 
notion  of  the  Bible"  must  be  preached,  but  it  must  be  brought 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  people  slowly,  indirectly,  and  with  the 
greatest  caution.  Such  are  the  spirit  and  aim  of  this  editorial. 
No  apology  for  it  or  explanation  of  it  thus  far  offered  has  mod- 
ified in  the  least  degree  its  unmistakable  significance.  It  has  not 
been  denied  that  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  appearing  at  the 
close  Of  the  nineteenth  Christian  century,  has  among  its  tenets 
"  a  new  notion  of  the  Bible."    Yet  the  whole  tone  and  drift  of 

V 


96 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


the  editorial  go  to  show  that  this  "  new  notion  "  is  like  a  package 
of  dynamite  which  must  be  handled  with  the  greatest  caution, 
especially  in  the  pulpit,  or  there  will  be  an  explosion  which  will 
be  destructive  of  the  pastor's  ministry,  if  not  of  the  church 
itself. 

Now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  a  "new  notion  of  the  Bible" 
which  cannot  be  preached  right  out  in  its  wholeness  and  in  all  its 
relations  and  bearings  without  wounding  the  religious  feeling  of 
the  best,  the  most  vigorous  and  earnest  people  in  the  congrega- 
tion, and  disrupting  pastoral  relations,  is  not  a  notion  which  can 
be  held  and  taught  by  a  professor  in  Audover  Seminary,  without 
recreancy  to  its  Statutes  and  Creed.  The  Founders,  according  to 
their  Creed,  believed  the  Bible  to  be  "  the  Word  of  God,"  most 
holy  and  blessed.  And  any  notion  of  the  "  Word  of  God  " 
which  is  repugnant  to  the  Christian  feeling  of  the  wisest,  the 
best,  the  most  devoted  members  of  our  churches  to-day  is  cer- 
tainly repugnant  also  to  the  Christian  feeling,  faith,  and  purpose 
of  the  Founders  as  expressed  in  their  Statutes  and  Creed.  No 
one  who  has  studied  the  character  and  faith  of  those  men  can 
doubt  this.  They  believed  that  God's  Word  should  be  preached 
frankly  and  honestly,  not  doubtingly  and  timidly  ;  preached  with- 
out fear  or  favor,  yet  with  persuasiveness  and  love ;  preached 
with  all  boldness  and  fidelity, — and  that  neither  the  Word 
of  God  nor  anything  about  the  Word  of  God  should  ever  be 
preached  with  indirection  or  deceitfulness.  Nobody  who  has  any 
true  understanding  of  the  character  and  beliefs  of  those  Founders 
can  deny  that  had  they  anticipated  that  a  "  new  notion  of  the 
Bible,"  repugnant  to  the  Christian  heart  and  faith,  would  ever  be 
held  and  taught  in  their  proposed  sacred  Institution,  the  Seminary 
would  never  have  been  founded. 

An  Inconsistency. 

Besides,  strange  to  say,  this  "  religious  feeling,"  this  Christian 
consciousness,  this  inner  divine  light,  which  in  this  instance 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  teaches  young  ministers  how  to  get 
around,  to  overcome,  and  dispose  of,  is  the  very  thing  which 
"  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  elsewhere  teaches  is  the  one  sure  test 
of  all  pretended  truth  —  the  supreme  tribunal  before  which  all 
revelation  even,  from  men  or  God,  must  bow  down  and  submit  its 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


97 


credentials.  This  seems  to  us  as  complete  a  self-contradiction 
and  self-stultification  "as  it  was  ever  our  misfortune  to  meet 
•with."  But  we  must  remember  that  "Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
according  to  the  testimony  of  one  of  its  chief  discoverers,  lives 
and  walks  on  a  lofty  plane  of  spirituality  and  ability,  where  it  has 
a  clear  vision  of  things  wonderful  and  incomprehensible,  which 
we,  and  such  as  we,  who  live  down  on  an  infinitely  lower  plane 
of  spirituality  and  ability  can  never  behold  or  understand.  Still, 
Mr.  President,  is  it  not  possible  that  those  who  live  forever  away 
up  in  the  clouds  and  mists  may  have  only  a  beclouded  and  misty 
vision  of  some  things  in  morals  and  in  theology,  which  those  of 
us  who  walk  on  the  earth,  having  only  feeble  abilities,  yet  living 
in  the  bright  sunshine,  can  see  clearly  and  understand  rightly? 

The  Bible  Not  Infallible. 
3.  This  same  editorial  (Andover  Review,  April,  1886),  for 
which  the  defendant  is  responsible  and  which  he  defends,  represents 
that  the  Bible  is  a  fallible  book.  Young  ministers  are  counseled 
to  adopt  a  certain  method  of  pulpit  instruction,  by  which  the 
conclusion  will  be  reached  and  commended  to  their  hearers, 
"  that  Christian  faith  is  not  necessarily  committed  to  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Bible."  But  if  the  Bible  is  not  infallible,  it  is 
fallible;  and  a  fallible  Bible  is  not  "  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 
practice"  —  a  conclusion  which  contradicts  the  Creed.  Nothing 
has  been  produced  which  breaks  down  this  evidence  and  this 
argument.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  phrase,  "the 
Word  of  God,"  as  used  in  the  Creed,  was  intended  to  mean 
exactly  the  Bible,  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  defendaut,  then,  in 
taking  the  Creed,  declares  it  to  be  his  belief  that  the  Bible  is  a 
"perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice";  but  in  his  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy"  he  teaches  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  "perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice."  This  will  seem  to  most  minds  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  our  charge,  notwithstanding  the  emphatic 
declaration  of  the  defendant,  that  "  not  a  scintilla  of  evidence" 
has  been  produced  which  shows  that  he  holds  and  teaches  any 
view  of  the  Scriptures  that  is  contrary  to  the  Creed. 

The  New  Notion  of  the  Bible  Not  New. 
But  this  notion  that  the  Bible  is  a  fallible  book  and  therefore 
not  a  "perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  is  not  "a  new  notion." 


98 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


It  is  as  old  as  the  completed  Bible.  Through  all  the  Christian 
centuries,  atheists  and  infidels,  all  the  avowed  enemies  of  the 
"Word  of  God,  and  the  "  liberals,"  so  called,  perhaps  without 
exception,  have  held  this  same  notion  that  "the  Bible  is  fallible 
and  untrustworthy  even  in  some  of  its  religious  teachings."  But 
Andover  Seminary  was  not  founded  to  maintain  the  views  of 
liberals,  infidels,  and  atheists,  but  of  Consistent  Calvinists. 

The  Bible  a  Vehicle. 

4.  In  this  same  editorial  passage  for  which  the  defendant  is  re- 
sponsible, "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  teaches  that  the  Bible  is  "  a 
vehicle,"  and  "that  the  perfection  of  the  vehicle  is  by  no  means 
implied  in  the  preciousness  of  its  contents,"  which  is  anotb3r  way 
of  teaching  that  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  convey  to  us  the 
revelations  of  God,  may  be,  to  any  extent,  imperfect  and  untrust- 
worthy. But  no  man  who  believes  that  they  may  be  imperfect 
and  untrustworthy  can  believe  that  they  are  "  a  perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice." 

The  notion  that  the  Bible  is  a  vehicle  is  not  new.  It  is  found 
in  some  old  religious  writings,  and  when  this  representation  is  not 
pushed  to  the  extreme  there  may  be  no  objection  to  it.  But 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  uses  this  figurative  language  to  indi- 
cate, not  simply  a  distinction  between  the  Scripture  which  con- 
veys the  divine  revelation  and  the  revelation  itself,  but  also  to 
set  forth  what  would  seem  to  be  a  most  harmful  error,  namely, 
that  the  Scripture  may  be  fallible  without  any  detriment  to  the 
precious  burden  of  divine  truth  and  revelation  which  it  was 
designed  to  bring  to  us.  Such  a  conception  certainly  disparages 
the  Scriptures  and  impairs  their  trustworthiness.  An  old  cart  is 
a  vehicle,  but  what  value  is  there  in  an  old  cart  that  is  broken  and 
wrecked?  It  may  have  rendered  valuable  service  once,  but  it  will 
never  render  such  service  again. 

But  is  the  Bible  merely  a  vehicle  ?  Is  it  true  that  the  relation 
of  the  Scriptures  to  their  contents  is  fairly  imaged  to  us  in  the 
relation  of  a  cart  to  what  it  carries  ?  We  can  easily  separate  a 
cart  from  its  load  without  harm  to  either  of  them.  There  is 
nothing  vital  in  their  union.  But  can  we  separate  the  Holy 
Scriptures  from  their  contents  without  detriment  to  the  one  or  the 
other?    Is  there  not  something  indispensable  in  their  union? 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


99 


There  are  lands  in  the  world  to-day  in  which  there  are  no  Bibles. 
Can  the  truths  and  revelations  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  be  made 
permanently  prevalent  in  the  knowledge  and  hearts  of  the  people 
in  those  lands  apart  from  the  Scriptures  themselves?  Are  tradi- 
tion and  preaching  sufficient?  Suppose  every  Bible  in  the  world 
and  all  Scripture  in  the  literatures  of  the  world  were  to-day 
blotted  out  of  existence  :  would  all  the  truths  and  revelations  of 
the  Bible  still  remain  in  the  world  permanent  and  intact?  How 
long  would  it  be  before  the  entire  world  would  become  heathen, 
and  how  could  it  be  prevented  from  remaining  such  forever  unless 
God  in  mercy  should  again  interpose,  and  give  men  another 
inspired  and  authentic  record  of  his  revelation  in  Christ  and  in 
his  gospel?  Even  with  the  Bible,  some  lands  once  Christian,  and 
some  Christian  churches  even,  have  retrograded  to  heathenism. 
But  without  the  Bible  how  much  swifter  must  they  have  relapsed 
into  heathen  darkness  and  degradation  !  This  shows  that,  what- 
ever real  distinction  may  be  made  between  the  Scriptures  and 
their  contents,  in  practical  Christianity  the  two  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated. The  representation  of  the  Bible  as  a  vehicle  may  be 
deceptive.  While  it  is  true  in  the  case  of  most  vehicles  that  there 
is  no  important  relation  between  them  and  what  they  carry,  and 
that  the  perfection  of  the  vehicle  is  not  implied  in  the  precious- 
ness  of  its  contents,  this  is  not  true  in  the  case  of  the  Scriptures. 
There  is  a  relation  of  vital  moment  between  them  and  the  truths 
and  revelations  which  they  convey.  Practically  in  this  case  the 
vehicle  and  its  contents  cannot  be  separated.  The  world  cannot 
have  the  divine  truths  and  revelations  working  effectively  and 
permanently  in  its  history  without  having  also  the  Scriptures 
which  contain  them. 

Moreover,  if  you  impair  or  destroy  the  Scriptures,  for  all 
practical  ends  you  put  the  truths  and  revelations  themselves 
beyond  reach.  It  may  be  said  that  the  great  facts  and  truths  of 
the  gospel  existed  before  they  were  recorded,  and  would  exist 
now  if  there  were  no  Scripture  ;  that,  for  instance,  the  blessed 
fact  that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son  to  die  for  it  would  have  remained  a  fact  had  it  never  been 
recorded.  True  ;  but  when  that  act  of  infinite  love  has  once  been 
put  into  an  inspired  and  authoritative  record  for  practical  ends  in 
the  salvation  of  living  men,  that  record  lives  in  that  divine  act  and 


100 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


that  divine  act  lives  and  works  through  that  Scripture  record. 
To  mar  or  destroy  that  Scripture  would  impair  the  working  and 
saving  power  of  that  divine  act. 

A  Fallible  Bible  Powerless. 

But  how  can  the  Holy  Scriptures  be  destroyed?  They  cannot 
be  destroyed.  Thousands  of  men  have  done  their  best  to  anni- 
hilate the  Bible,  but  have  failed  utterly.  Thousands  are  doing 
their  best  now  to  extinguish  it,  but  all  their  labor  will  be  brought 
to  naught.  No  believer  in  God  need  ever  tremble  for  his  Word. 
Still  in  the  faith  of  individual  man,  and  in  its  power  over  indi- 
vidual minds,  hearts,  and  lives,  the  Bible  may  be  destroyed.  A 
man's  Bible  exists  no  longer  for  him  when  he  ceases  to  have 
confidence  in  its  divine  authority  and  in  its  trustworthiness.  A 
fallible  Bible  is  not  a  precious  Bible,  and  when  the  Bible  ceases 
to  be  precious  to  a  human  heart  it  loses  power  over  that  heart. 
It  is  an  infallible  Bible  that  has  both  preciousness  and  power. 
It  is  not  true,  then,  that  the  perfection  of  the  Scriptures  is  by  no 
means  implied  in  the  preciousness  of  their  contents.  Practically 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  and  the  preciousness  of  its  truths 
and  revelations  go  together ;  also,  the  fallibility  of  the  Bible  and 
the  non-preciousness  of  its  contents  go  together.  If  a  man's 
Bible  is  dear  to  him,  that  does  imply  that  to  him  it  is  infallible, 
the  very  ""Word  of  God,"  having  had  utterance  in  some  true 
and  real  sense  from  God  himself.  The  Bible  is  not  a  toy  to 
play  with,  nor  a  puzzle  to  be  solved.  It  is  for  practical  service 
in  promoting  the  most  transcendent  interests  of  men  in  time  and 
in  eternity.  It  has  been  given  us  for  redemptive  uses,  and  for 
the  perfecting  and  the  comforting  of  God's  people,  and  not  for 
the  training  of  intellectual  gymnasts.  It  has  come  to  us  from 
God  for  the  salvation  of  a  sinful  and  lost  world,  and  not  for 
bolstering  up  the  down-tumbling  theories  of  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy." 

The  Founders'  View  of  the  Bible. 

Now  the  faith  of  the  Founders  respectiug  the  Scriptures  we 
know.  There  can  be  no  question  as  to  what  it  was.  They  be- 
lieved the  Scriptures  to  be  "  the  Word  of  God,"  infallible  in  their 
moral  and  religious  teachings,  "  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


101 


practice,"  and  that  they  have  a  divinely  ordained  and  practical 
relation  to  the  facts,  truths,  and  revelations  which  they  convey  to 
us.  The  Founders  accepted  without  question  the  declaration  of 
the  apostle  Peter :  "  Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Their  interpretation  of  this  apostolic  state- 
ment was,  that  the  sacred  writers  were  specially  moved  upon,  and 
directed  by,  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  speaking  of  the  truths  which 
God  desired  to  make  known  to  the  world,  and  so  also  in  the  writ- 
ing of  such  truths;  that  they  were  11  moved"  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  speaking  and  in  writing  the  truth  no  less  than  in  the  reception 
of  it  into  their  own  minds  and  hearts.  The  Founders  also  ac- 
cepted without  question  the  declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul :  "All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God."  This  apostolic  state- 
ment does  not  imply  that  the  sacred  writers  were  mere  pens  in  the 
hands  of  God  ;  but  it  does  imply,  and  the  Founders  understood 
it  to  imply,  that  all  Holy  Scripture  came  into  being  under  the 
inspiring,  inbreathing  energy  of  God.  It  was  the  "Scripture," 
the  writing,  that  was  thus  inspired.  A  knowledge  and  an  un- 
derstanding of  the  truth  may  at  the  same  time  have  been  breathed 
into  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  sacred  writers  ;  but  what  Paul 
says  is  that  "all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God"  — 
the  writing  of  the  truth  is  what  the  divine  inspiration  brings 
about.  This  is  what  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary  believed. 
They  accepted  these  apostolic  statements  as  declaring  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Hence  the  Bible 
was  to  them  the  "  Word  of  God,"  holy,  infallible,  "  the  only 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

The  Defendant's  View  of  the  Bible. 

Now,  we  complain  that  this  entire  view  of  the  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture  is  rejected  by  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy." These  plain,  positive,  decisive  statements  of  the  apostles 
have  no  prominence  in  the  professor's  long  chapter  on  "The 
Scriptures."  They  are  barely  alluded  to,  and  that  only  for  the 
purpose  of  setting  them  aside  summarily  as  giving  us  no  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  Scriptures ;  while  the  faith  of  those  who 
accept,  as  the  Founders  did,  the  apostolic  account  of  their  ori- 
gin is  treated  with  misrepresentation  and  contempt,  as  if  they 
believe  that  the  Bible  was  created,  as  the  world  was,  by  "a 


102 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


special  operation  of  Almighty  power,"1  that  it  is  "a  book  of 
oracles,"  and  was  produced  "by  sheer  and  stark  miracle."2 
Especially  and  most  emphatically  does  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
deny,  in  opposition  to  the  belief  of  the  Founders,  that  the 
sacred  writers  wrote  under  any  moving  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or 
inspiration  of  God,  other  than  that  which  influenced  them  in  their 
daily  speech  and  life,  or  other  in  kind  than  that  under  which  all 
Christian  people  speak  and  write  and  act  to-day.  Such  state- 
ments as  the  following  are  significant.  Speaking  of  the  agency 
of  "Almighty  power"  in  producing  the  Holy  Scriptures,  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy"  (p.  194)  says:  — 

But  surely  in  the  absence  of  a  clear  revelation  that  such  special  divine 
power  was  employed,  we  have  no  right  to  assert  its  exercise.  If  with- 
out its  use  the  Bible  as  it  stands  can  be  accounted  for,  it  becomes 
unnecessary.  .  .  .  [Christian  faith]  says,  therefore,  that  if  the  forces 
visible  in  sacred  history  appear  to  the  best  human  vision  to  have  pro- 
duced the  Bible,  God  must  have  wished  man  to  believe  that  they  did 
produce  it. 

Referring  to  the  apostolic  epistles,  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
says  :  — 

Whatever  is  peculiar  in  their  composition,  or  extraordinary  in  their 
value,  is  to  be  found  in  the  apostolic  teaching  generally.  For  there  is 
not  a  scintilla  of  evidence  that  God  assumed  to  the  minds  of  the  apos- 
tles a  new  relation  as  soon  as  they  sat  down  to  write,  and  that,  in  con- 
sequence, what  they  wrote  had  a  different  quality  from  what  they  said.3 

But  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  does  not  admit  that  the  apostles 
had  any  divine  aid  in  their  oral  teaching  other  than  what  they 
had  in  their  daily  living.  It  affirms  that  their  noble  deeds  and 
their  oral  teaching  alike  flowed  from  their  spiritual  life,  which 
spiritual  life  was  not  in  the  least  different  in  kind  from  that  of 
other  Christians.    It  says  :  — 

The  gift  received  by  the  infant  church  on  Pentecost  was  not  merely 
the  bestowal  of  this  and  that  capacity ;  it  was  that  of  living  in  a  new 
and  higher  way.  Out  of  its  quickened  and  mightily  invigorated  life 
leaped  its  new  deeds  of  heroic  devotion.  From  this  fresh  and  ever- 
renewed  fountain  flowed  its  teaching.4 

But  it  is  generally  supposed  that  the  supreme  transaction  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  was  the  sudden  and  special  descent  of  the 

iProg.Orth.  p.  194.      *Ibid.  p.  203.      *p.  196.      «p.  200. 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


103 


Holy  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  He  had  something  special  to  do  that 
clay,  not  simply  with  the  life  of  the  disciples  in  general,  but  with 
the  preaching  of  Peter  in  particular.  Undoubtedly,  the  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  disciples  were  brought  into  "  a  new  and  higher 
way  "  of  living,  but  if  the  eleven  apostles  received  nothing  more 
than  a  new  and  higher  spiritual  life  —  nothing  more  special  — 
why  did  not  all  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  disciples  become 
apostles,  preaching  that  day  as  Peter  did,  and  bringing  each  of 
them  three  thousand  souls  into  the  kingdom,  and  afterwards 
writing,  out  of  their  own  new  and  higher  spiritual  life,  apostolic 
epistles  which  would  live  forever  as  "The  Word  of  God"? 

The  Scriptures  not  Specially  Inspired. 

That  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  denies  the  fact  of  any  special 
apostolic  inspiration  different  from  that  enjoyed  by  all  Chris- 
tian teachers  and  writers  is  also  made  plain  by  the  following 
statement :  — 

AVe  should  not  dwell  upon  what  seems  to  us  so  obvious,  but  for  the 
fact  that  the  assumption  of  a  special  activity  of  the  divine  Spirit  upon 
the  apostles  and  other  writers  of  Scripture  in  the  act  of  composition, 
endowing  what  came  from  their  pens  with  qualities  possessed  by  no 
other  Christian  teaching,  is  a  most  fruitful  source  of  confusion,  in  the 
endeavor  to  find  out  what  Scripture  is.  It  is  insisted,  not  only  that 
there  is  no  evidence  of  such  an  act,  but  that  the  supposition  of  its  exist- 
ence is  contrary  to  facts  which  lie  on  the  face  of  the  Scriptures.1 

"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  teaches  that  the  daily  outward  life 
of  the  apostles,  their  preaching  and  their  writing,  all  alike,  come 
directly  from  their  inner  spiritual  life.  But  their  inner  spiritual 
life  did  not  keep  them  from  wrong  acts  in  their  outward  lives. 
Peter  dissembled.  Paul  confessed  that  he  had  not  attained  to 
perfection.  But  if  the  inner  spiritual  life  of  the  apostles  did  not 
keep  them  from  moral  error  in  their  lives,  how  could  it  have  kept 
them  from  religious  error  in  their  writings?  To  deny,  as  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy"  does,  that  the  sacred  writers  had  any  special 
divine  aid  in  their  writing  is  to  deny  that  their  writings  them- 
selves, the  Holy  Scriptures,  have  any  special  divine  authority  or 
trustworthiness. 

We  claim,  therefore,  that  these  "progressive"  views  of  the 

i  Pros.  Orth.  p.  198. 


104 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


origin  of  the  Bible,  accepted  and  defended  by  a  professor  in 
Audover  Seminary,  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  believe  that 
the  Scriptures  are  a  "  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  In 
taking  the  Creed  he  declares  that  they  are  a  "perfect  rule," 
but  in  accepting  and  defending  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  he 
declares  that  they  are  not  a  "  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

Moreover,  this  inner  spiritual  life  of  the  sacred  writers,  which 
is  said  to  have  been  the  immediate  source  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
must  itself  have  come  from,  or  have  been  a  part  of,  those  "forces 
visible  in  sacred  history,"  which  also  are  said  to  have  produced 
the  Bible.  Yet  those  historical  forces  may  be  regarded  as  work- 
ing simply  according  to  the  laws  of  necessary  evolution.  In  that 
case  the  Bible  would  be  only  their  natural  and  inevitable  product. 
This  would  make  the  Bible,  at  the  best,  simply  a  survival  of  the 
fittest,  in  the  production  of  which  God  has  had  no  more  to  do 
than  he  has  had  in  the  production  of  the  grass  and  the  trees. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  views  of  the  origin  of  the  Bible 
expressed  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  have  already  led  some  of 
their  zealous  advocates  to  represent  that  the  inspiration  of  David 
and  Isaiah,  of  Paul  and  John  was  nothing  different  in  kind  from 
that  of  Shakespeare  and  Byron,  Theodore  Parker  and  Ralph 
Waldo  Emerson.  Yet  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  not  self-con- 
sistent. It  sometimes  makes  statements  and  uses  phrases  which 
contradict  the  statements  now  quoted.  This  may  indicate  that 
the  writer  has  still  some  lingerings  in  his  mind  of  his  old  evangel- 
ical faith,  and  that  the  view  of  the  dear  old  Book,  as  "  The  Word 
of  God,"  taught  him,  perhaps,  in  his  childhood  home,  will  now 
and  then,  in  spite  of  himself,  get  into  verbal  expression.  But 
the  views  we  have  here  presented  are  the  real  and  prevailing 
views  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy";  and  these  accepted  by  any 
man  will  soon  and  inevitably  drive  out  of  his  mind  all  opposing 
views  and  prevent  inconsistent  statements. 

Now  we  submit.  Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  that  a  theory  of  the 
origin  and  character  of  the  Bible  which  sets  it  forth  as  a  fallible 
book,  and,  so  far  as  fallible,  untrustworthy  in  its  teachings  and 
revelations  ;  which  disparages  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  describing 
them  as  sustaining  no  essential  or  important  relation  to  their 
contents  ;  which  discards  the  Bible's  own  representations  of  its 
origin  and  character ;  which  makes  the  Bible  simply  the  product 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


105 


of  visible  forces  working  in  sacred  history ;  and  which  denies 
that  the  sacred  writers  wrote  under  any  special  moving  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  under  any  special  inspiration  of  God,  — 
we  submit  that  such  a  theory  of  the  origin  and  character  of  the 
Bible  cannot  be  held,  defended,  and  taught  by  a  professor  in 
Andover  Seminary  without  undeniable  and  criminal  disloyalty  to 
its  Creed  and  Statutes. 

5.  The  attention  of  the  Board  is  asked  to  only  one  more  of  the 
many  other  proofs  of  our  first  particular  charge. 

The  Supreme  Test  of  All  Scriptures,  "  In  Our  Mind 
and  Hearts." 

"  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  which  the  defendant  accepts  and  de- 
fends as  his  own  theology,  teaches  that  all  revelation,  aside  from 
Christ  himself,  coming  to  us  as  from  God,  must  present  its  cre- 
dentials to  "  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts."  That  is, 
"  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts,"  whatever  that  may  mean, 
is  the  supreme  test  and  standard  by  which  all  other  pretended  truth 
or  revelation  is  to  be  tried  and  judged.  Of  course,  then,  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  not  "  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice," 
for  there  is  another  and  superior  rule  of  faith  and  practice  found 
"  in  our  mind  and  hearts,"  before  which  all  external  truth  and 
revelation  must  bow  down  and  submit  their  credentials.  This 
remarkable  teaching,  so  utterly  antagonistic  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Andover  Creed,  is  set  forth  in  the  following  extract :  — 

If  Christ  is  the  supreme  and  final  revelation,  He  is  the  test  of  all  pre- 
ceding revelation.  If  we  accept  Him  as  God's  supreme  and  final  reve- 
lation, Ave  must  bring  preceding  revelations  to  this  test.  We  cannot 
escape  the  process  of  comparison  if  we  would.  He  brings  us  his  own 
conception  of  God,  of  life,  of  duty.  It  claims  to  cover  the  whole  hori- 
zon of  truth,  and  demands  possession  of  every  spiritual  and  rational 
faculty.  If  we  will  have  it  as  ours,  we  must  hold  it  separate  from  and 
above  every  other.  Whatever  else  comes  to  us  as  from  God  must  present 
its  credentials  to  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts.  This  is  not  only 
the  teaching  of  Christian  faith;  it  is  the  teaching  of  Christ.  When  He 
told  us  that  certain  precepts  of  the  law  were  to  be  replaced  by  spiritual 
maxims  more  in  harmony  with  the  nature  of  God,  He  taught  us  to  apply 
Christian  principles  to  all  the  law  and  prophets,  and  to  regard  all 
in  them  which  is  not  consistent  with  those  principles  as  superseded  by 
the  new  revelation.    For  no  one  thinks,  surely,  that  when  He  made 


10(3 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


exceptions  to  certain  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  code,  He  merely  amended 
a  law  which  whenever  not  amended  holds  good.1 

Our  complaint  against  the  writer  of  this  passage  is  not  that  he 
recognizes  "  no  objective  divine  revelation."  He  does  recognize 
such  a  revelation.  But  our  charge  is  that  he  makes  that  objective 
divine  revelation  inferior  to  that  which  he  finds  in  his  own  mind 
and  heart,  and  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  others ;  and  thus 
makes  it  impossible  for  him  truthfully  and  honestly  to  take  the 
Creed  and  say  :  "I  believe,  .  .  .  that  the  Word  of  God,  con- 
tained in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  is  the 
only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  "  for  at  the  same  time,  in 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  he  is  declaring  his  belief  to  be  that  the 
Word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scriptures  must  bow  down  before, 
and  submit  its  credentials  to,  another  and  superior  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  which  he  finds  in  "  Christ's  truth  in  his  own  mind 
and  heart."  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  claim  that  by  means  of 
this  supreme  test  and  standard  of  truth  which  he  has  within  him 
he  himself  can  amend  the  law  and  the  prophets  (as  he  falsely 
affirms  Christ  did),  and  thus  set  up  for  himself  and  the  world 
another  rule  of  faith  and  practice  which  shall  be  superior  to  and 
supersede  whatever  he  may  judge  erroneous  in  the  Scriptures. 
Christ,  he  says,  "  taught  us,"  that  is,  every  living  disciple,  "  to 
apply  Christian  principles  to  all  the  law  and  prophets,  and  to 
regard  all  in  them  which  is  not  consistent  with  those  principles  as 
superseded  by  the  new  revelation."  This  would  give  every  Chris- 
tian, if  not  every  man,  full  liberty  to  amend  the  Scriptures  accord- 
ing to  his  own  pleasure,  all  the  time  thinking  he  is  piously 
following  the  example  of  Christ  —  just  as  if  he  had  all  power 
and  authority  to  do  everything  Christ  did ;  and  just  as  if  Christ 
ever  amended,  and,  so  far  as  He  amended,  destroyed  a  single 
ancient  Scripture,  when  he  himself  said :  "  Think  not  that  I 
came  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets  :  I  came  not  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfill.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth 
pass  away,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  away  from 
the  law,  till  all  things  be  accomplished."  That  surely  does  not 
look  as  if  Christ  had  done  very  much  at  the  business  of  amend- 
ing or  chauging  the  ancient  Scriptures  as  an  example  to  us  to  do 
the  same. 

»Prog.  Orth.  p.  231. 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


107 


Christ  in  Evert  Man. 

But  what  is  "  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts,"  and 
whence  does  it  come?  It  cannot  be  the  gospel  as  given  by  the 
four  Evangelists,  nor  any  other  Scripture,  for  it  is  itself  the  test 
of  all  Scripture,  and  therefore  superior  to  all  Scripture.  "Christ's 
truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts"  may  mean  "Christian  conscious- 
ness" ;  for  that  is  a  marvelous  power,  according  to  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  and  is  superior  to  all  Scripture  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  thus  in  itself  furnishing  us  with  positive  proof  that  the 
defendant  does  not  believe  in  the  Bible  as  "  the  only  perfect  rule 
of  faith  and  practice."  But  "Christ's  truth"  in  us  is  a  queer 
designation  of  Christian  consciousness.  More  likely  by  "  Christ's 
truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts  "  is  meant  Christ  himself,  for  in  this 
same  passage  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  "the  supreme  and  final  reve- 
lation," and  "Christ's  truth"  in  us  is  also  described  as  the 
supreme  and  final  revelation.  Moreover,  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  elsewhere,  speaking  of  the  apostles,  says  :  — 

Not  that  they  alone  possessed  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation. 
He  [Christ]  is  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  every  soul  in 
which  He  dwells.1 

Note  this  statement:  "  Christ  is  the  Spirit,"  not  of  wisdom  only, 
but  "  of  revelation  in  every  soul  in  which  He  dwells."  Thus  every 
such  soul,  as  truly  as  the  apostles,  has  the  Spirit  and  power  of 
revelation,  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles  are  not  "  the  only 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  Moreover,  according  to 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  Christ  dwells  in  every  man.  '■'•Christ 
in  every  man"  the  very  person  and  being  of  Christ  organically  and 
vitally  united  to,  and  immanent  in,  every  human  being  —  this,  as 
will  be  shown  further  on,  is  the  germ  and  root,  the  primary, 
formative,  all-pervading,  all-controlling  principle  in  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy."  It  is  a  pantheistic  and  pagan  principle.  It  corrupts 
every  Christian  doctrine  it  touches,  and  it  touches  all  the  miscel- 
laneous doctrines  that  have  been  included  in  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy." It  touches  its  doctrine  concerning  Scripture  at  the  point 
now  before  us.  It  practically  says  that  the  truth  of  Christ,  who 
is  immanent  in  every  human  soul,  is  the  supreme  and  final  reve- 
lation, before  which  every  other   revelation,  including  all  the 

'p.  209. 


108 


First  Particular  Complaint. 


Scriptures,  coming  to  us  as  from  God,  must  bow  down  and  sub- 
mit its  credentials.  Such  doubtless  is  the  meaning  of  this  nota- 
ble passage  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  But  for  our  present 
purpose  we  are  not  obliged  to  show  what  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 
"  Christ's  truth  in  our  mind  and  hearts"  is.  Whatever  it  signi- 
fies, it  is  something  in  us  which  as  revelation  is  superior  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  ;  and  no  man  can  believe  in  any  such  superior 
truth  or  revelation  in  himself,  and  at  the  same  time  believe  that 
the  Scriptures  are  the  "  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

It  has  now  been  proved,  we  submit,  if  anything  can  be  proved, 
that  our  charge  is  true;  namely,  that  the  defendant  "holds, 
maintains,  and  inculcates  that  the  Bible  is  not  the  only  perfect 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  is  fallible  and  untrustworthy  even 
in  some  of  its  religious  teachings." 

But  the  proof  of  this  allegation  is  proof  also  of  our  first 
general  charge  ;  namely,  that  the  defendant  "  has  taught  doctrines 
.  .  .  which  are  not  in  harmony  with,  but  antagonistic  to,  the 
Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary  and  the  '  true  inten- 
tion' of  its  Founders  as  expressed  in  those  Statutes." 

It  is  proof  also  of  our  second  general  charge,  namely,  that  the 
defendant,  "  contrary  to  the  requirements  of  Articles  XI  and 
XII  of  the  Constitution,  as  modified  by  Article  I  of  the  Addi- 
tional Statutes,  is  not  a  man  'of  sound  and  orthodox  principles.'" 

Finally,  our  proof  of  this  first  particular  allegation  is  proof 
likewise  of  our  third  general  charge  ;  namely,  that  the  defendant, 
in  breach  of  the  requirement  of  Article  II  of  the  Associate 
Foundation,  upon  which  he  is  placed,  is  not  an  "  orthodox  and 
consistent  Calviuist." 


III. 


SECOND    PARTICULAR  COMPLAINT. 

Our  second  special  complaint  is  that  Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth 
holds,  maintains,  and  inculcates,  in  opposition  to  the  Creed  and 
the  Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  '•'■That  Christ  in  the  days  of  his 
humiliation  was  a  finite  being,  limited  in  all  his  attributes,  capac- 
ities, and  attornments ;  in  other  words,  was  not  God  and  man." 

In  subscribing  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary,  the  defendant 
declares  it  to  be  his  belief  "  that  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  elect 
is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  for  this  purpose  became  man,  and 
continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one 
person  forever."  The  defendant  also  declares,  in  taking  the 
Creed,  that  in  his  belief  "  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and 
unchangeable  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power  ;  .  .  .  that  in  the  God- 
head are  three  Persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  that  these  three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory." 

The  Question  at  Issue. 
Now  the  question  at  issue  is,  Does  the  Creed  allow  the  belief 
that  when  the  eternal  Son  of  God  "  became  flesh  "  He  ceased  to 
be  God,  became  ignorant,  changeable,  unwise,  limited  in  all  his 
attributes  —  so  ignorant,  indeed,  that  in  some  cases  He  did  not 
know  the  nature  of  the  diseases  He  healed?  Does  the  Creed  allow 
such  a  belief  as  this?  Impossible  ;  for  it  says  definitely  that  the 
eternal  Son  of  God  "became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and 
man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  forever."  That  is,  from 
the  moment  of  his  becoming  man,  He  "  continues  to  be  God  and 
man  "  forever.  He  had  a  human  nature  with  its  limitations.  At 
the  same  time  He  has  a  divine  nature  which  is  without  limitations, 
for  He  is  truly  God  as  well  as  truly  man.  The  Creed  definitely 
states  that  He  had  "too  distinct  natures."  It  does  not  permit 
the  belief  that  it  was  his  human  nature  that  was  divine,  and  that 
therefore  He  had  only  one  nature,  and  that  this  one  human  nature 
was  divine  only  in  the  sense  in  which  all  human  nature  is  divine. 

109 


110 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


It  declares  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  becoming  incarnate  con- 
tinues to  be,  not  simply  a  divine  man,  but  God  and  man.  This  is 
known  to  have  been  the  belief  of  the  Founders.  And  it  is  a 
well-established  legal  as  well  as  moral  principle  that  a  creed  is  to  be 
honestly  interpreted  according  to  the  known  beliefs  of  its  authors. 

The  Charge. 

Now  we  charge  that  the  defendant,  who  accepts  and  defends 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy,'"  holds  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  in 
taking  on  our  nature,  did  cease  to  be  God,  and  became  ignorant 
and  mutable,  became  limited  in  all  his  powers  and  attributes ;  and 
then  at  his  ascension  and  glorification  became  again  God,  immu- 
table, omniscient,  omnipresent,  and  infinite  in  all  his  attributes. 

In  proof  of  this  charge,  at  the  first  trial  of  the  defendant 
three  passages  were  cited,  two  from  "Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
and  one  from  The  Andover  Review.  The  two  from  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  "  were  cited  to  show  that  the  defendant  believes  that 
God  iu  becoming  incarnate  ceased  to  be  God,  and  the  third  was 
quoted  to  show  that  he  also  believes  that  Christ,  in  his  ascension 
and  glorification,  again  became  God,  infinite,  omnipresent,  and 
unchangeable. 

Reply  of  the  Defendant. 
The  professor,  in  his  first  reply,  misquoted  the  charge,  repre- 
senting it  to  be  that  the  defendant  holds,  maintaius,  and  inculcates 
"  that  Christ  was  not  during  his  earthly  life  Lord  and  Man."  The 
professor  substitutes  the  phrase  "  Lord  and  Man,"  for  the  phrase 
used  in  the  charge  and  iu  the  Creed,  "  God  and  Man."  He  then 
replies  to  the  charge,  thus  misstated  by  himself,  in  three  sentences, 
saying  first,  — 

If  this  means  that  I  hold  that  he  was  not  two  persons,  1  admit  the 
allegation,-and  deny  that  I  thus  affirm  anything  contrary  to  the  Creed 
and  Statutes. 

Of  course  he  knew  perfectly  well  that  no  such  allegation  had 
been  made  against  him.  But  he  must  appear  to  say  something  in 
response  to  the  serious  charge  to  which  he  was  called  to  answer. 
So  he  conjectured  another  charge,  and  dealt  with  that.  The 
Creed  itself  distinctly  affirms  that  the  incarnate  Christ  was  "one 
Person." 

His  second  sentence  in  reply  was  :  — 


/ 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


Ill 


If  it  [the  charge]  means  that  I  hold  that  He  was  not  from  his  birth  or 
Incarnation  both  Lord  and  Man,  I  deny  the  accusation. 

Whether  this  repeated  substitution  of  the  word  "Lord"  for  the 
word  "God"  was  made  designedly  or  by  mistake,  we  do  not 
know.  In  either  case,  however,  the  defendant  would  seem  simply 
to  deny  the  charge  made  against  him,  without  rebutting  or  dis- 
posing of  the  evidence  which  sustains  the  charge. 
His  third  sentence  in  reply  was  :  — 

I  deny  also  that  the  "  more  definite  specification  "  given  yields  anything 
which  contradicts  the  language  cited  by  the  complainants  from  the 
Seminary  Creed. 

Not  a  word  did  he  say  in  explanation  or  retraction  of  the  state- 
ments found  in  the  two  citations  from  "Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
which,  we  claim,  furnish  positive  proof  of  the  truth  of  our  charge. 

The  professor  in  his  second  reply 1  —  which  was  given  in  his 
public  trial  before  the  Visitors — dealt  with  this  charge  in  a  still 
more  summary  and  evasive  manner.  He  made  not  the  least  allu- 
sion to  the  two  decisive  quotations  which  we  made  from  "Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy,"  but  referring  to  our  quotation  from  The  Andover 
Review,  which  was  presented  to  show  that  the  defendant  does 
believe  that- Christ  after  his  ascension  and  glorification  was  God, 
the  professor  simply  remarks  that  "  the  complainants  .  .  .  over- 
look the  statement  on  page  524,"  which  affirms  that  "  Jesus  Christ 
the  Saviour"  "  was  true  God  and  true  man."  But  the  decisive 
question  is,  When  was  He  true  God  and  true  man?  Not  the  least 
hint  is  given  in  the  quotation  suggested  by  the  professor  that  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  was  truly  God  while  in  the  flesh.  The  theory 
of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  appears  to  be  that  the  man  Jesus, 
at  his  glorification,  expanded  into,  or  in  some  way  became,  God, 
and  the  theory  may  include  the  notion  that  he  took  his  humanity 
with  him,  and  so  became  God  and  man.  But  all  this  has  nothing 
to  do  with  our  complaint.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  defendant 
could  have  dealt  more  evasively  with  this  most  serious  charge,  or 
have  made  a  more  complete  failure  to  vindicate  himself  against  it. 

Evidence  in  Support  of  the  Complaint. 
We  now  present  again  the  two  citations  from  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy "  which  contain  the  proof  of  our  charge,  and  which 

1  The  Andover  Defence,  p.  114. 


112 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


the  defendant  neglected  to  explain  or  justify  or  retract.  The 
first  is  as  follows  :  — 

And  even  if  one  is  convinced  that  our  Lord  accepted  the  traditional 
view  of  the  authorship  of  the  books  in  question  [the  Pentateuch],  he 
cannot  hold  that  His  authority  is  committed  to  that  view  until  he  has 
satisfied  himself  that  Christ  claimed  to  be  omniscient  during  the  days 
of  his  humiliation  —  a  belief  irreconcilable  with  his  own  declaration 
that  He  knew  neither  the  day  nor  the  hour  of  his  second  coming.1 

This  is  an  indirect  yet  convincing  statement  on  the  part  of 
the  writer  that  he  does  not  believe  that  Christ  was  omniscient  in 
the  days  of  his  humiliation.  But  if  He  was  not  omniscient, He  was 
not  God. 

The  second  citation  was  this  :  — 

There  was  not  only  growth  of  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  but  a  progress- 
ive union  with  the  divine.  Here  is  the  truth  in  the  theories  of  the  Keno- 
tists,  who  maintain  that  the  Word,  at  the  Incarnation,  laid  aside,  or 
suspended  the  exercise  of,  his  attributes  of  omniscience,  omnipotence, 
and  the  like.  This  is  but  a  clumsy  and  somewhat  violent  and  unethical 
method  of  appropriating  certain  undeniable  facts ;  such  as  the  limitation 
of  Jesus'  knowledge,  the  perfect  human  reality  of  his  earthly  life,  the 
veritable  growth  of  his  consciousness  and  personality  from  the  moment 
of  the  Incarnation.2 

Among  the  facts  which  the  defendant  says  are  undeniable  is 
"  the  limitation  of  Jesus'  knowledge."  But  we  repeat,  if  Christ, 
the  eternal  Son  of  God,  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation  was  ignorant, 
He  was  not  God.  If  He  was  not  omniscient,  He  was  not  all-wise  ; 
if  not  all- wise,  He  was  not  almighty,  nor  did  He  possess  auy  other 
infinite  attribute. 

The  third  citation  was.  designed  to  prove  that,  in  the  defend- 
ant's belief,  this  man,  called  Jesus,  in  his  glorification  became 
true  God,  even  if  He  still  continued  to  be  true  man.  The  citation 
is  as  follows  :  — 

The  limitations  to  which  his  humanity  subjected  him  are  recognized : 
but  as  the  glorified  Christ,  He  is  delocalized,  unlimited,  is  with  his 
church  alsvay  unto  the  end  of  the  world.3 

The  absolute  absurdity  of  representing  that  the  finite  can  be- 
come infinite  does  not  appear  to  have  occurred  to  the  progressive 
divines.    But  according  to  the  citations  now  presented  the  teach- 

■Prog.  Orth.  p.  227.      2  Ibid.  p.  32.      » Andover  Review,  May,  1886,  p.  522. 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


113 


ings  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  upon  the  momentous  question 
of  the  deity  of  our  Lord  during  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  when 
He  made  the  atonement,  and  when  He  was  giving  to  the  world 
"  the  everlasting  gospel,"  are  evidently  such  that  no  man  who 
accepts  them  can  truthfully  and  houestly  subscribe  to  that  state- 
ment of  the  Creed  which  affirms  that  "the  eternal  Son  of  God" 
"  became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man,  in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person  forever."  Nor  can  any  man  who  accepts 
such  views  truthfully  and  honestly  subscribe  to  the  Creed-declara- 
tion that  "God  is  a  Spirit  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in 
his  being,  wisdom,  power."  For  if  He  who  is  declared  in  the  Creed 
to  be  "  the  eternal  Son  of  God,"  "  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory  "  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  became, 
in  the  days  of  his  Incarnation,  ignorant,  unwise,  and  limited  in 
all  his  powers  and  attributes,  and  so  ceased  to  be  God,  then  God 
is  a  changeable  God.  His  very  being  is  in  a  state  of  flux  and 
reflux.  He  may  be  one  kind  of  being  to-day  and  another  kind 
to-morrow,  infinite  in  all  his  attributes  one  time,  finite  in  all  his 
attributes  at  another  time.  True,  change  in  an  infinite  Being  is 
impossible,  and  nothing  can  exceed  the  absurdity  of  such  a  con- 
ception;  yet  this  is  the  conception  and  teaching  of  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy."  The  progressive  professors,  in  subscribing  to  the 
Creed,  declare  their  belief  to  be  that  God  is  "unchangeable  in 
his  being,  wisdom,  power."  But  in  their  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  they  declare  their  belief  to  be  that  God  is  not  unchangeable 
in  his  being,  wisdom,  and  power ;  that  in  the  Incarnation  of  the 
eternal  Son,  who  was  "  the  same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power 
and  glory  "  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  He  became  finite 
in  his  being,  and  limited  in  all  his  power  and  attributes  ;  that  is, 
He  who  was  God  ceased  to  be  God. 

Editorials  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ.1 

Since  the  last  hearings  upon  the  Andover  Case  before  the  Board 
of  Visitors,  held  September  1  and  6,  1892,  a  series  of  editorial 
articles  upon  "The  Divinity  of  Christ,"  in  The  Andover  Review, 
has  been  continued.  These  articles  furnish  abundant  confirmation 
of  our  charge  that  the  editorial  professors  do  not  believe  in  the 

1  Since  this  argument  was  prepared,  these  editorials  have  been  published  in  a  book 
entitled  "The  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ." 


114 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


deity  of  our  Incarnate  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  that  in  this  particu- 
lar they  antagonize  the  Creed  which  they  have  accepted  and 
promised  to  maintain. 

The  Incarnate  Son  of  God  Unconscious  of  His  Deity. 

First,  they  teach  in  these  recent  and  remarkable  discussions 
that  our  Lord,  while  on  the  earth,  had  no  consciousness  of  his 
own  Deity.  They  quote  approvingly  from  a  recent  writer  these 
words  :  — 

If  in  any  one  thing  the  man  Christ  Jesus  knew  as  God,  knew  because 
He  was  God,  knew  after  the  .  .  .  mode  of  the  divine  and  not  human 
knowledge  —  in  that  thing  his  humanity  was  violated,  ceased  to  be 
humanity,  and  became  or  was  changed  into  divinity.  A  human  mind 
can  only  know  in  accordance  w  ith  the  laws  and  conditions  of  the  human 
mind  and  of  human  knowledge.  When  it  knows  outside  of  these,  it  is 
not  a  human  mind. 

Upon  this  quotation  the  professors  remark  :  — 

This  is  as  true  when  the  thing  known  is  the  knowing  mind  itself  as 
when  it  is  a  person  or  fact  outside  of  it.  Hence,  Jesus  Christ's  being 
the  person  whom  the  Apostles  believed  Him  to  be  does  not  imply  that  his 
self-consciousness  formerly  comprehended  an  infinite  nature,  however 
really  it  readied  into  and  vitally  reflected  the  Divine  Life,  but  the  con- 
trary. For  the  self-consciousness  which  comprehends  the  infinite  is  the 
activity  of  a  divine,  not  of  a  human  mind.1 

This  language  of  the  professors,  and  of  the  writer  whose  sen- 
timents they  approvingly  quote,  clearly  denies  the  Deity  of  our 
Incarnate  Lord.  They  declare  that  Christ,  being  a  man,  could  not 
be  conscious  that  He  was  God  without  a  violation  of  his  human- 
ity, without  ceasing  to  be  human,  and  becoming  God.  Of  course, 
then,  in  the  belief  of  the  professors,  Christ  while  in  the  flesh 
was  not  God.  For,  in  their  view,  He  was  not  conscious  of  being 
God.  A  God  unconscious  of  his  Deity  is  an  absurdity.  The 
Creed,  however,  which  tbe  professors  have  subscribed  to,  and 
solemnly  promised  to  inculcate,  declares  that  the  eternal  Son 
of  God  "became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man,"  that 
is,  continues  to  be  God,  and  of  course  is  conscious  of  being  God  ; 
and  continues  to  be  man,  and  of  course  is  conscious  of  being  man. 

>  Andover  Review,  July,  1S92,  p.  82. 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


115 


If  the  professors  declare  that  this  statement  of  the  Creed  is  ab- 
surd, and  that  they  cannot  believe  it,  then  why  do  they  subscribe 
to  the  Creed  and  declare  that  they  do  believe  it?  Why  not  be 
honest  men  and  resign  their  professorships  ? 

Christ  did  Not  have  Two  Natures. 

Secondly,  the  professors  in  the  language  quoted  above,  and 
repeatedly  elsewhere,  deny  that  our  Incarnate  Lord  had  "  two  dis- 
tinct natures."  They  teach  that  Christ  being  a  man  was  not  God, 
and  could  not  have  been  conscious  of  being  God.  Then  surely 
He  did  not  have  the  nature  of  God,  and  could  not  have  been 
conscious  of  having  such  a  nature.  The  belief  of  the  profess- 
ors obviously  is  thaj  Christ  had  a  veritable  human  nature,  but  no 
divine  nature  distinct  from  his  human  nature.  Yet  the  Andover 
Creed,  which  these  same  professors  have  accepted  and  promised 
to  maintain  and  teach,  affirms  "that  the  eternal  Son  of  God" 
"  became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  tivo  distinct 
natures  and  one  person  forever." 

Human  Nature  in  Christ  and  in  All  Men  Divine. 

Yet,  thirdly,  the  professors  speak  boldly  of  the  "divine 
nature  of  Christ,"  of  his  "  divinity,"  his  "  divineness,"  and 
of  his  "divine-human  personality."  But  these  are  words  of 
duplex  and  indefinite  meaning,  and  can  be  used  illusively. 
What  is  their  import  as  used  by  the  Andover  progressives?  It 
is  not  their  custom  to  give  definitions,  and  these  terms,  so  far 
as  we  know,  they  have  never  defined.  They  may,  therefore,  use 
them  designedly  or  undesignedly  in  such  a  vague  and  evasive 
sense  as  to  make  the  impression  on  some  minds  that  they 
themselves  believe  in' the  true  divinity,  the  absolute  Deity  of  the 
Incarnate  Christ,  when  in  fact  they  believe  in  nothing  of  the  kind. 
Sometimes,  perhaps,  the  professors  do  use  this  terminology  as 
expressing  the  idea  of  absolute  Deity  ;  but  more  usually  they 
appear  to  use  it  as  signifying  nothing  more  than  that  God  was 
in  Christ  as  He  is  in  all  nature  and  in  all  men,  only  in  a  larger 
degree.  According  to  their  conception  there  were  not"  £100  dis- 
tinct natures  "  in  Christ,  one  being  God,  or  infinite,  and  the  other 
being  man,  or  finite.  Christ  had  only  one  nature,  which  was  a 
human  nature.    But  his  human  nature  was  divine.    His  divinity 


116 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


was  "  the  divinity  of  humanity."  God,  they  intimate,  could  "  so 
unite  himself  to  a  human  soul  as  to  make  it  divine."  1 

But  note,  "it  vra.s  a  human  soul"  in  Christ  that  was  made  divine. 
It  was,  then,  only  a  created  divineness  that  Christ  had.  He  had  a 
divine  nature,  but  his  divine  nature  was  only  his  created  human 
nature.  He  was  conscious,  therefore,  of  his  divineness,  but  not 
of  being  God.  While  He  had  no  divine  nature  distinct  from  his 
human  nature  (as  the  Andover  Creed  affirms  He  had),  yet  He 
"  had  divineness  in  a  human  nature."2 

Unitarianism. 

Throughout  these  articles  on  "The  Divinity  of  Christ,"  the 
words  "divine"  and  "divinity"  are  used  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  the  Unitarians  were  wont  to  use  them.  They  claimed  to 
believe  in  "  the  divinity  of  Christ."  They  even  held,  as  has  been 
stated  by  high  authority,  "that  he  was  very  divine."  It  is  most 
painful  to  notice  in  articles  written  by  Andover  professors  the 
same  evasion  and  ambidextrousness  in  the  use  of  words  which 
have  so  often  been  practised  by  the  bitterest  enemies  of  evangelical 
Christianity.  Can  this  practice  be  introduced  into  Andover  Sem- 
inary without  shameful  disloyalty  to  the  sacred  faith  and  purposes 
of  the  Founders?  Andover  Seminary  was  founded  for  the 
express  purpose  of  opposing  the  Unitarian  view  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ. 

Naturalism. 

Fourthly,  the  Andover  progressives  in  these  editorial  articles 
represent  Christ  as  belonging  to  an  ascending  order  of  revela- 
tions, and  as  completing  that  order.    They  say  :  — 

"  Nature  is  a  revelation  of  God."  u  Humanity  is  a  revelation  of 
God."  "Is  humanity,  as  it  is  and  has  been,  the  culmination?"  "If 
nature  reveals  God,  affording  conditions  favorable  to  the  expressions 
of  his  greatness  and  wisdom,  so  far  forth  there  is  a  kinship  between 
God  and  nature.  It  is  not  separate  from  Him,  nor  exclusive  of  Him, 
but  is  open  at  every  point,  in  every  atom,  to  his  indwelling.  .  .  .  With 
humanity  He  is  more  closely  akin.  .  .  .  Such  kinship  between  man 
and  God  constitutes  human  nature  the  most  fitting  organ  for  the  em- 
bodiment, the  incarnation,  of  the  divine  grace  and  love  which  are 
necessary  to  make  men  the  children  of  God.  .  .  .  And  if  God  lives  in 
nature  so  that  He  can  be  known  there,  if  He  reveals  himself  in  and  to 


i  Andover  Review,  July,  1892,  pp.  82,  S9.      2  Ibid.  July,  1892,  p.  89. 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


117 


the  reason  and  conscience  of  man,  much  more,  it  is  easy  to  believe, 
could  He  reveal  himself  through,  or  unite  himself  to,  or  live  in,  that 
person  who  is  confessed  to  be  the  best,  the  holiest,  the  most  akin  to 
God  of  all  the  men  who  have  ever  lived.  The  belief  concerning  Jesus 
is  not  that  God  in  all  his  absoluteness,  omniscience,  and  omnipotence 
took  on  the  form  of  a  man  and  walked  about  among  men  in  Galilee, 
so  that  Jesus  knew  all  occurrences  on  earth  and  through  the  universe, 
and  was  conscious  that  he  created  the  stars,  and  knew  more  than  not 
only  the  ancients,  but  more  than  the  moderns,  of  science  and  philoso- 
phy ;  but  it  is  the  belief  that  God  was  in  Christ,  so  far  as  God  can  man- 
ifest his  life  in  a  human  personality  at  a  given  period  in  history,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  in  his  grace  and  love  for  the  renewal  and 
perfection  of  men."1 

The  Diyine  Immanence. 

In  the  last  of  the  above  quotations  the  professorial  editors 
declare  dogmatically  "the  belief  concerning  Jesus"  —  what  it 
is  not  and  what  it  is.  But  whose  belief  is  it?  Surely  not  that 
of  the  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  as  formulated  in  their 
Creed,  which  the  professors  themselves  are  under  the  most 
sacred  obligations  to  maintain  and  inculcate.  For  that  Creed 
declares  explicitly  that  "the  eternal  Son  of  God,"  who  is  "the 
same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory"  with  the  Father 
and  Holy  Ghost,  "  became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man 
in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  forever."  This  belief  no 
sane  man  will  say  is  "  the  belief  concerning  Jesus,"  dogmatically 
affirmed  by  the  professors  in  the  above  extracts.  Nor  is  their 
"belief"  concerning  Jesus,  as  they  now  formulate  it,  found  in 
any  evangelical  Creed  that  was  ever  written.  Nor  can  it  be  dis- 
covered in  the  Scriptures.  It  has  been  generally  supposed  by 
Christian  people  that  our  knowledge  concerning  Christ  must 
come  from  the  Word  of  God.  But  these  professors,  in  determin- 
ing "  the  belief  concerning  Jesus,"  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Word  of  God.  In  all  their  recently  published  discussions  upon 
"  The  Divinity  of  Christ,"  they  have  made  only  a  few  remote  and 
vague  allusions  to  scriptural  statements  upon  the  subject.  Their 
Christ  is  one  of  their  own  creation.  "The  belief  concerning 
Jesus,"  which  they  set  forth  is  born  of  their  own  fancy,  and  they 
offer  not  a  single  particle  of  evidence  in  support  of  its  truth. 
Their  statements  are  presented  as  so  many  oracles. 

» Andover  Review,  October,  1892,  pp.  392,  393,  396-398. 


118 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


"It  is  the  belief"  they  tell  us,  "  that  God  was  iu  Christ  so  far 
as  God  can  manifest  his  life  in  a  human  personality  at  a  given 
period  in  history."  (The  italics  are  ours.)  There  is  no  mistak- 
ing the  theory  that  lies  back  of  this  oracular  statement.  The 
professors  are  not  the  only  men  who  are  reading  works  upon 
evolution  and  studying  the  old  pagan  Pantheism  of  Greece  and 
India ;  but  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  they  are  the  only  men  who  place 
the  authority  of  such  sources  of  knowledge  respecting  God  and 
his  eternal  Son  above  that  of  God's  Holy  Word. 

The  theory  that  lies  back  of  the  professor's  speculative  "  belief 
concerning  Jesus"  is  that  of  M  the  divine  immanence"  so  called, 
as  distinguished  from  the  divine  omnipresence  ;  the  latter  mean- 
ing not  only  that  God  is  everywhere  present  in  his  universe,  but 
also  that  He  is  other  than  any  of  the  beings,  worlds,  and  things 
which  He  has  created  ;  the  former  meaning  that  God  is  organically 
and  vitally  united  to  all  the  beings,  worlds,  and  things  which 
make  up  what  is  called  the  universe,  so  that  the  universe  as  a 
whole  and  all  the  individual  beings  and  things  in  it  partake  of 
the  divine  essence  or  are  constituent  parts  of  God's  Person. 
That  God  is  omnipresent  in  his  created  universe  and  beyond  it 
is  a  biblical  revelation.  The  unbiblical  speculation  of  the  pro- 
gressive professors  is  that,  while  the  incarnate  Christ  was  not 
God,  and  did  not  differ  essentially  from  any  other  man,  yet  in  his 
glorified  state  He  is  God,  and  as  such  is  organically  and  vitally 
united  to  all  beings  aud  substances  in  his  universe.    They  say  :  — 

his  universe  is  not  attached  to  him  externally  but  vitally.  He  is  not 
a  governor  set  over  it,  but  is  its  life  everywhere.1 

Every  being  and  thing,  then,  all  worlds  and  substances,  heaven 
and  hell  and  all  that  are  in  them,  not  only  have  Christ  present  in 
them,  but  also  are  vitally  united  to  Him  aud  consequently  cannot 
exist  apart  from  Him.  They  are  all  "in  Christ"  and  Christ  is 
"in  them"  by  a  vital  union  the  destruction  of  which  would  be 
the  destruction  of  the  universe.  The  entire  universe,  therefore, 
and  all  beings  and  things  in  it,  existing  as  they  do  only  through 
their  vital  relation  to  Him,  are  akin  to  Him  and  so  are  as  truly 
divine  as  He  is.  Indeed,  as  they  all  hold  Christ  in  themselves  up 
to  the  full  measure  of  their  capacity,  and  hold  Him  too  as  an 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  44. 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


119 


essential  part  of  their  very  being,  yea,  as  their  very  life,  so  far 
as  they  do  thus  hold  Him  they  themselves  are  Christ. 

Christ  and  All  Other  Men  Capacious  of  Deity. 

Such  is  one  of  the  beliefs  of  the  progressive  divines  respecting 
Christ.  Turn  now  to  another  presentation  of  this  same  belief 
respecting  Christ  —  a  presentation  made  in  pure  dogmatism,  with- 
out the  quotation  of  a  single  Scripture,  or  the  setting  forth  of  the 
least  particle  of  any  kind  of  evidence  in  proof  of  its  truth. 
Speaking  of  Christ's  humanity  and  comparing  that  with  all  other 
humanity,  they  say  :  — 

For  this  humanity  was  fashioned  to  be  the  perfect  organ  and  instru- 
ment of  revelation,  to  be  freely  swayed  and  controlled  in  all  its  move- 
ments by  the  will  of  God,  to  be  more  and  more  filled  with  his  gifts  as 
its  powers  expanded  from  infancy  to  maturity,  to  receive  the  Spirit 
without  measure,  to  be  transfigured  by  the  indwelling  Deity,  to  be 
glorified  in  God.  All  its  experiences,  whether  active  or  passive,  were 
those  of  a  nature  created  capacious  of  Deity.  This  is  true  also  of  other 
men  according  to  their  measure.  Indeed,  it  is  the  highest  note  and  attribute 
of  humanity  at  large.1    [The  italics  are  ours.] 

Certain  things  in  this  citation  should  be  carefully  considered, 
and  a  comparison  of  this  citation  with  those  which  immediately 
precede  it  is  suggestive  of  certain  vital  questions. 

Christ  had  Only  a  Created  Nature. 

(a)  We  are  informed  that  all  the  experiences  of  Christ's 
humanity,  "whether  active  or  passive,  were  those  of  a  nature 
created  capacious  of  Deity."  Christ's  nature,  then,  was  a  created 
nature.  But  according  to  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  as  has 
already  been  shown,  he  had  only  one  nature  and  that  was  his 
human  nature.  The  statement  of  the  Creed,  that  "the  eternal 
Son  of  God,"  from  the  moment  of  his  Incarnation  "  continues  to 
be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures,"  is  again  denied  in  toto 
by  the  very  men  who  have  promised  to  "  maintain  and  inculcate" 
that  statement.  Christ,  then,  in  his  earthly  life  had  no  divine 
nature  distinct  from  his  created  human  nature.  He  was  a  man, 
but  he  was  not  "(rod  and  man."  Then  he  was  simply  a  creature. 
He  was  only  a  man,  created  as  all  other  men  are.    He  was  nothing 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  21. 


120 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


more  and  nothing  less  than  a  man.  All  Unitarians  would  be 
satisfied  with  this  view  of  Christ.  True,  these  progressive 
divines  speak  of  the  "divine  nature"  of  Christ,  and  use  other 
phraseology  which  implies  that  our  Lord  was  something  more 
than  a  man.  Yet  their  theory  and  their  dominating  representa- 
tion, we  submit,  is  that  Christ,  however  unique,  great,  and  good 
he  may  have  been,  had  only  a  human  nature  and  therefore  was 
only  a  man.  But  this  is  Unitarianism  ;  and  Andover  Seminary 
was  founded  and  endowed  with  the  expressed  intention  of  oppos- 
ing Unitarianism.  Moreover  the  defendant  and  all  his  progressive 
compeers  have  given  their  pledge  over  their  own  names  that,  as 
honorable  Christian  men,  they  will  faithfully  carry  out  this  prime 
intention  of  the  Founders. 

Christ  had  No  Experience  that  was  Not  Human. 

(b)  We  are  also  informed  that  ilall  the  experiences  "  of  Christ's 
humanity  were  those  of  a  created  human  nature.  None  of  his 
experiences,  therefore,  were  those  of  an  uncreated  divine  nature. 
Yet,  according  to  the  Creed,  He  once  had  a  divine  nature  abso- 
lutely distinct  from,  and  unconnected  with,  a  human  nature.  Before 
his  Incarnation  He  was  "  the  eternal  Son  of  God,"  "  the  same  in 
substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory"  with  "the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Ghost."  But  if  He  became  man,  and  only  man,  with  no 
'■'■distinct"  divine  nature,  what  became  of  "the  eternal  Son  of 
God"?  Did  He  die?  Was  He  blotted  out  of  existence  !  If  not, 
where  was  He?  He  had  become  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  but  in  that 
man  he  was  not  "  the  eternal  Son  of  God  "  conscious  of  his  Deity. 
What,  then,  and  where  was  He?  What  answer  can  be  given  to 
these  questions?  The  simple  truth  is  that  the  assertion  of  the 
progressive  professors,  that  Christ  in  his  earthly  life  had  no  divine 
uncreated  nature  distinct  from  his  created  human  nature,  is  a 
positive  denial  that  there  was  any  Incarnation  whatever  of  the 
absolute,  eternal  Son  of  God  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

Christ  Divine,  but  Not  God. 

(c)  We  are  likewise  instructed  to  believe  that  Christ's  human 
nature  was  "  created  capacious  of  Deity."  And  it  is  frankly  and 
significantly  added  that  "  This  is  true  also  of  other  men  accord- 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


121 


ing  to  their  measure.  Indeed,  it  is  the  highest  note  and  attribute 
of  humanity  at  large."  That  is,  the  Incarnate  Christ  had  no 
distinctively  divine  nature,  but  his  human  nature  was  divine  in 
the  sense  that  it  was  a  receptacle  of  Deity  ;  yet  in  this  respect  he 
did  not  differ  in  the  least  from  other  men.  All  men  are  recepta- 
cles of  Deity  and  therefore  have  a  nature  as  truly  divine  as  was 
that  of  Cbrist.  Christ  may  have  been  more  "  capacious  of  Deity" 
than  most  men,  estimating  his  capaciousness  by  dry  measure  ;  but 
all  men  are  "capacious  of  Deity,"  each  "according  to  his  own 
measure." 

This  whole  conception  of  God  in  his  relation  to  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  and  to  all  other  men,  is  intensely  materialistic  and  mechani- 
cal. God  is  not  thought  of  as  a  Person,  a  Spirit,  infinite,  om- 
nipresent, immutable,  and  indivisible,  but  as  a  certain  substance 
called  Deity,  which  exists  in  quantity  and  can  be  divided  and 
measured  off,  and  poured  into  the  man  called  Jesus,  and  into 
every  other  man,  according  to  the  measurement  of  their  capa- 
ciousness carefully  estimated  in  figures.  The  process  of  filling 
up  all  these  capacious  human  receptacles  is  evidently  by  emana- 
tion or  efflux  from  God  considered  as  the  great  orb  or  reservoir 
of  Deity.  Nor  is  Deity  poured  into  men  only.  All  other  beings 
and  creatures,  all  worlds  and  things  are  capacious  of  Deity,  and 
they  all  receive  their  apportionments  of  Deity,  each  according  to 
its  measure.  All  nature  is  alive  with  Deity,  the  Deity  being  not 
a  person  but  life.  In  a  citation  above  made  from  The  Andover 
Review,  for  October,  1892,  we  are  told  that 

there  is  kinship  between  God  and  nature.  It  is  not  separate  from  Him, 
nor  exclusive  of  Him,  but  is  open  at  every  point,  in  every  atom,  to  his 
indwelling.  .  .  .  With  humanity  He  is  more  closely  akin.  .  .  .  And  if 
God  lives  in  nature  so  that  He  can  be  known  there,  if  He  reveals  himself 
in  and  to  the  reason  and  conscience  of  man,  much  more,  it  is  easy  to 
believe,  could  He  reveal  himself  through,  or  unite  himself  to,  or  live  in, 
that  person  who  is  confessed  to  be  the  best,  the  holiest,  the  most  akin 
to  God  of  all  men  who  have  ever  lived. 

That  is,  as  God  is  vitally  united  to,  and  lives  in,  the  grass  and  the 
trees  and  the  beasts,  and  is  akin  to  them,  so,  only  more  closely, 
He  was  united  to  and  dwelt  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  Such,  and 
only  such,  was  the  Incarnation  !  God  was  united  to,  and  dwelt  in, 
the  man  of  Nazareth  in  precisely  the  same  way  in  which  He  is 


122 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


united  to  and  is  dwelling  to-day  in  every  man  and  in  all  nature  ! 
Then  every  man  living  to-day  is  an  incarnation  of  God  as  truly 
as  Christ  was,  and  after  the  same  manner.  And  the  manner  of 
God's  dwelling  in  our  Lord  and  Redeemer  in  his  earthly  life  was 
not  at  all  different  from  the  manner  in  which  He  is  now  dwelling 
in  all  the  beasts  of  the  field  and  in  all  nature.  He  is  "more 
closely  "  united  to  man  than  to  the  beast.  That  is  all  the  differ- 
ence. He  was  "  more  closely"  united  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus 
than  to  any  other  man.  That  was  all.  The  union  in  kind  is 
everywhere  the  same.  Christ  was  a  greater  man,  more  capacious 
of  Deity,  and  a  better  man  than  any  other  man ;  but  all  this 
would  make  him  simply  a  unique  man,  and  no  amount  of  such 
uniqueness  could  make  him  anything  more  than  a  man.  In  fact, 
our  adorable  Lord  and  Saviour,  according  to  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy," in  his  earthly  life  was  only  a  fine  product  of  the  law  of 
natural  selection,  a  survival  of  the  fittest ;  and  there  have  been  in 
history  multitudes  of  such  human  products  and  survivals,  all  fine 
and  fit  according  to  the  measure  of  their  capaciousness  of  Deity. 
Indeed,  in  this  view,  every  man  is  as  truly  a  God-man  as  was  the 
Lord  Jesus  himself.  If  men  in  general  are  not  God-men,  then 
Christ  was  not  a  God-man,  for  in  his  earthly  life  Christ's  relation 
to  God  was  in  kind  precisely  that  of  every  other  man.  If  Christ 
was  not  "  a  mere  man,"  then  no  man  is  "  a  mere  man."  If  men 
in  general  are  mere  men,  then  Christ  was  "a  mere  man."  If, 
indeed,  it  be  true  that  Christ's  relation  to  God  was  not  different 
in  kind  from  that  of  every  other  man,  then  there  was  in  him  no 
incarnation  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  unless  every  man  is  an 
incarnation  of  God's  eternal  Son. 

If  it  should  be  said  by  the  defence  in  reply  that  the  historic 
Christ  was  the  highest  and  grandest  of  all  created  beings,  and 
therefore  was  something  more  than  "a  mere  man,"  though  not 
the  absolute  God,  then  the  defendant  would  announce  himself  an 
Arian.  But  Arianism  is  one  of  the  errors  which  the  professor  has 
solemnly  promised  to  oppose.  But  he  nowhere  claims  to  be  an 
Arian.  He  does,  however,  most  emphatically  deny  the  belief  — 
he  even  attempts  to  ridicule  the  belief  —  that  Christ  in  his  earthly 
life  was  God.  "The  belief  concerning  Jesus,"  he  affirms,  "is 
not  that  God  in  all  his  absoluteness,  omniscience,  and  omnipo- 
tence took  on  the  form  of  a  man  and  walked  about  among  men  in 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


123 


Galilee,  so  that  Jesus  knew  all  occurrences  on  earth  and  through 
the  universe,  and  was  conscious  that  he  created  the  stars."  What, 
then,  is  "the  belief  concerning  Jesus"?  It  is  this:  "that  God 
was  in  Christ,  so  far  as  God  can  manifest  his  life  in  a  human  per- 
sonality at  a  given  period  in  history."  (Italics  ours.)  Surely, 
then,  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God  was  nothing  but  "  a  human  per- 
sonality at  a  given  period  in  history,"  having  in  itself  as  much  of 
God's  life  as  it  had  capacity  to  hold  and  manifest.  But  the  de- 
fendant declares  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  p.  21,  that  "  This 
is  true  also  of  other  men  according  to  their  measure."  Christ 
had  in  him  more  of  God's  life  than  other  men  have,  not  because 
he  was  other  than  a  man,  but  only  because  he  was  more  "  capa- 
cious of  Deity."  But  this  capaciousness  was  a  part  of  his  man- 
hood, and,  as  we  have  already  said,  made  him  nothing  but  a 
mere  man.  The  life  of  God  in  him  was  also  a  part  of  his  man- 
hood, and  no  more  made  him  God  than  it  makes  any  other  man 
God,  or  makes  a  living  tree  God.  According  to  this  shockingly 
materialistic  theory,  we  repeat,  God  is  to  be  regarded  as  existing 
in  quantity  and  as  capable  of  being  weighed  and  measured, 
divided  and  distributed.  If  the  average  man  holds,  say  one 
measure  of  Deity,  Christ  holds,  perhaps,  ten  measures  of  Deity. 
But  neither  the  average  man  nor  the  Lord  Jesus  in  his  earthly 
life  is  capable  of  containing  more  than  the  smallest  fraction  of 
God.  Our  incarnate  Lord  and  every  other  man  have  in  themselves, 
as  identical  with  their  very  life  and  being,  measurable  parts  of  the 
very  life  and  being  of  God  each  according  to  the  measure  of  his 
own  capaciousness.  We  cannot  help  asking ;  when  we  have  set 
aside  the  very  life  and  being  of  a  man,  what  is  there  left  to  be 
capacious  of  anything?  Nevertheless,  such  is  the  theory  of  these 
progressive  divines.  The  man  Christ  Jesus,  like  every  other 
man,  contains,  as  the  life  and  the  very  essence  of  his  being,  a 
certain  small  fraction  of  the  life  and  very  essence  of  God's  being  ; 
yet  he  is  infinitely  removed  from  being  God.  The  teachers  of 
"  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  declare  that  Christ,  when  he  "  walked 
among  men  in  Galilee,"  was  not  "  God  and  man,"  as  the  Creed 
affirms  he  was.  He  was  not  "  the  absolute  God,"  "  very  God," 
truly  God.  "  He  was  not  conscious  that  he  created  the  stars." 
If  he  ever  did  create  them,  he  had  forgotten  all  about  it.  Still  he 
had  in  him  as  much  of  God  as  "  a  human  personality"  could  have 


124  Second  Particular  Complaint. 


had  "  at  that  period  in  history."  If  he  had  been  born  in  some 
other  period,  in  our  own,  for  instance,  and  had  come  under  all  its 
light  and  culture,  and  specially  if  he  had  been  developed  under 
the  advanced  thought  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  and  under  the 
personal  training  of  the  progressive  professors  at  Andover,  he 
would  doubtless  have  been  far  more  capacious  of  Deity.  But,  in 
fact,  he  had  in  him  only  so  much  as  was  possible  to  him  in  his 
own  little  country  and  in  his  own  benighted  period  in  history. 
Such  was  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  according  to 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy."  This  whole  conception  of  the  being  of 
God,  and  of  the  constitution  of  the  Person  of  his  eternal  Son,  in 
our  view  comes  perilously  near  to  blasphemy.  When  this  "be- 
lief," as  it  is  called,  is  folly  understood  we  are  much  mistaken  if 
it  is  not  found  to  be  simply  shocking  to  every  reverent  Christian 
mind.  But  such  is  "  the  belief"  of  the  Andover  progressives  re- 
specting God  and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  we  cannot  avoid  the 
conviction  that  it  sets  forth  the  eternal  Son  of  God  in  his  Incar- 
nate life  as  nothing  but  "  a  mere  man"  weak,  ignorant,  fallible, 
and  utterly  incompetent  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 

A  Possible  Reply  of  the  Defendant. 

If  now  in  reply  to  all  this,  the  defendant  should  say:  "We 
use  figurative  language,  and  you  have  no  right  to  interpret 
such  language  literally  ;  we  use  the  familiar  phrase  capax  Dei, 
simply  as  a  figure  of  speech,  meaning  by  it  that  man  has  the 
capacity  or  power  to  receive  God,  and  especially  God  in  Christ, 
and  to  become  united  to  Him,  through  faith,  repentance,  love, 
sympathy,"  —  if  the  defendant  makes  this  reply,  our  answer  is 
that  these  progressives  have  nowhere  said  that  such  is  their 
meaning.  But  they  have  repeatedly  represented  that  such  is 
not  their  meaning.  They  have  denied  over  and  over  that  man 
of  himself  has  any  such  personal  power.  Their  teaching  is  that 
all  men  are  "in  Christ";  and  that  Christ  is  in  all  men,  filling 
them  with  Deity,  according  to  the  measure  of  their  capaciousness, 
not  through  their  faith  and  love,  but  antecedent  to  faith,  repent- 
ance, love,  and  obedience  ;  that  all  men  are  united  to  Christ,  not 
by  an}''  external  attachment,  as  one  separate  being  may  become 
attached  to  another  by  sympathy,  trust,  and  love,  but  by  an 
internal  and  vital  union  ;  as  in  a  human  person  his  body  from 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


125 


the  first  moment  of  his  existence  is  vitally  united  to  his  head, 
not  in  any  figure  of  speech,  but  in  reality.  This  asserted  union 
of  every  man  with  Christ  is  a  vital,  living  union,  an  actual 
identification  of  all  human  beings  with  the  Lord  Jesus,  they 
constituting  the  body  of  which  He  is  the  Head. 

It  is  not  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  but  Consistent  Calvinism, 
which  teaches  that  only  those  who  believe  on  Christ  receive  Him 
and  become  united  to  Him.  This  union,  moreover,  is  not  a 
union  in  essence  of  being,  but  in  love,  —  a  union  of  heart  with 
heart,  —  a  union  which  is  attained  only  through  personal  repent- 
ance, faith,  and  the  new  birth,  and  which  alone  secures  in  man 
spiritual  kinship  to  Christ  and  likeness  to  Him  in  character, 
purpose,  and  life.  This  is  the  closest,  dearest,  and  most  blessed 
bond  by  which  a  redeemed  sinner  can  ever  be  united  to  his 
Redeemer.  To  describe  this  ineffably  tender  and  holy  relation 
of  penitent  and  trustful  sinners  to  their  Lord  and  Saviour,  Con- 
sistent Calvinism,  as  well  as  Christ  and  the  apostles,  uses  all 
manner  of  apt  illustrations.  But  no  imagery,  or  any  other  human 
language,  is  equal  to  the  task  of  adequately  portraying  this 
beatific  and  glorious  union. 

All  Men  in  Vital  Union  with  Christ.  —  Pantheism. 

But  this  exalted,  personal  relation  of  believing  sinners  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  is  not  the  union  which  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
glorifies.  These  progressives  believe  in  a  race-union  with  Christ. 
"  The  race,"  they  say,  "  is  reconstituted  in  Christ."  This  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  reconstitution  of  individual  sinners  through 
their  personal  repentance  and  faith,  under  the  regenerating  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  but  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  imma- 
nence reconstituting  every  human  soul.  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy" makes  no  account  of  union  with  Christ  through  faith. 
Its  pervasive  and  all-controlling  idea  is  that  of  the  iudwelling 
of  Christ,  not  in  believers  only,  but  in  all  men,  irrespective  of 
any  consent  or  act  of  their  own,  and  irrespective  of  their  moral 
character.  Moreover  this  unscriptural  and  immoral  idea  of  the 
indwelling  of  Christ  in  all  men  before  they  have  any  personal 
experience  of  the  new  birth,  or  of  saving  faith  and  repentance, 
is  confessedly  only  "an  integral  part "  of  the  larger  conception 
of  the  indwelling  of  God  as  the  one  and  only  life  of  the  universe. 


126 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


This  larger  conception  is  not  that  God  is  the  Creator  of  universal 
life,  but  that  He  is  that  life.1 

It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  root  idea  of  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy  "  is  Pantheism.  But  Pantheism  does  not  need  to  be  set 
forth  in  figures  of  speech.  It  is  itself  such  a  literal,  organic,  and 
vital  union  of  the  entire  uuiverse  with  God  that  each  is  identi- 
cally the  other.  Not  in  figure  of  speech,  but  in  reality,  all 
existences  are  in  God ;  and  God  is  in  them,  not  by  his  omni- 
presence, not  as  other  than  they,  but  as  identically  one  with  them. 
This,  we  venture  to  affirm,  will  be  found  to  be  the  germinal  and 
increasingly  regnant  principle  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  It 
is  an  old  pagan  notion.  It  was  accepted  as  very  truth  by 
heathen  in  ancient  Greece  and  India,  and  thence  was  exported 
to  other  lands  ;  but  it  has  been  long  dead  and  buried  in  most 
Christian  communities.  The  Andover  progressives,  however, 
have  rediscovered  and  exhumed  the  mouldering  body  of  this  dead 
speculation.  They  have  breathed  into  it  a  little  spasmodic  life 
and  have  baptized  it  with  a  new  name.  With  great  shoutings 
and  blare  of  brazen  trumpets  they  are  now  offering  their  discovery 
to  the  astonished  world  as  a  sample  of  their  own  new  and 
advanced  beliefs.  They  are  fascinated  with  their  prize  very 
much  —  to  change  the  figure  —  as  little  children  might  be  with 
the  Hashing  eye  and  glassy  head  of  a  deadly  serpent,  long  torpid 
but  just  now  come  to  life,  but  of  whose  real  nature  they  know 
nothing.  The  deadly  nature,  however,  of  this  old  pagan  Pan- 
theism, once  more  waked  to  life,  will  not,  we  venture  to  predict, 
be  long  concealed. 

(d)  We  now  raise  the  question,  What  is  the  evangelical 
doctrine  respecting  the  constitution  of  Christ's  Person  which 
is  required  by  the  Statutes  to  be  taught  in  Andover  Seminary? 

The  Associate  Founders  of  the  Seminary  were  Hopkinsians, 
but  they  called  themselves,  and  preferred  to  be  called,  Consist- 
ent Calvinists.  They  accepted  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  as 
defined  and  preached  by  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  Dr.  Jonathan 
Edwards  the  younger,  Dr.  Joseph  Bellamy,  and  other  followers 
of  the  famous  Jonathan  Edwards  the  elder.  Their  theology  was 
definite,  positive,  and  thoroughly  evangelistic.  Consistent  Calvin- 
ism has  been  called  "  the  New  England  Theology,"  and,  among 

lSee  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  43,  44;  also,  Andover  Review,  April,  1890,  p.  439. 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


127 


Presbyterians  more  especially,  "the  New  Scnool  Theology." 
These  names  are  modern,  but  the  theology  itself  is  substantially 
that  which  in  all  the  Christian  ages  has  been,  under  God,  the 
inspiration  of  about  everything  that  has  been  done  for  the 
evangelization  of  communities,  nations,  and  the  world.  The 
Consistent  Calvinists,  who  took  the  leading  part  in  founding 
Andover  Seminary  under  its  present  Statutes,  intended  at  first 
to  found  a  Theological  Institution  at  Newbury,  Massachusetts. 
The  funds  were  pledged  and  a  Creed  was  prepared  for  that  pro- 
posed institution.  The  Creed  was  written  by  Dr.  Samuel  Spring 
in  consultation  with  Dr.  Leonard  Woods,  Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons, 
and  other  Consistent  Calvinists.  That  Creed  unchanged  became, 
and  is  now,  the  Creed  of  Andover  Seminary.  The  Seminary 
Creed,  therefore,  is  not  "  a  compromise  creed."  Dr.  Leonard 
Woods,  one  of  the  authors  of  this  famous  symbol  of  faith,  and 
for  so  many  years  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  the 
Seminary,  and  who  knew  whereof  he  affirmed,  informs  us  in  his 
"  History  of  Andover  Seminary"  that  the  identical  Creed  which 
was  written  by  Consistent  Calvinists  for  their  proposed  theologi- 
cal institution  at  Newbury  was  accepted  by  the  Founders  and 
became  the  unalterable  Creed  of  Andover  Seminary.1 

Thus  the  theology  which  this  Seminary  was  founded  to  teach 
is  Consistent  Calvinism.  Indeed,  the  Associate  Statutes  require, 
in  the  most  positive  terms,  that  every  professor  on  the  Associate 
Foundation  shall  be  "  an  Orthodox  and  Consistent  Calvinist"  —  a 
designation  at  first  and  now  of  most  definite  and  well-known 
import. 

The  Evangelical  Doctrine  of  the  Constitution  of 
Christ's  Person. 

What  now  is  that  doctrine  respecting  the  constitution  of  Christ's 
Person  which  was  and  is  held  by  all  Consistent  Calvinists  and 
which  is  required  by  the  Andover  Creed  and  Statutes  to  be  taught 
in  the  Andover  Seminary?  Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons,  himself  a 
Consistent  Calvinist,  and  who  assisted  his  brother-in-law,  Dr. 
Spring,  in  writing  the  Andover  Creed,  has  stated  the  doctrine  of 
the  two  natures  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ,  as  it  is  held  by  all 
Consistent  Calvinists,  in  language  as  remarkable  for  its  scholarly 
1  See  Wood's  History  of  the  ADdover  Seminary,  pp.  99,  100. 


128 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


precision  and  clearness  as  the  language  of  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy" is  for  its  unscholarly  vagueness  and  equivocalness.  In 
answer  to  the  question,  'kWhat  is  meant  by  Christ's  human  na- 
ture being  personally  united  with  his  divine  nature?"  he  says  :  — 

It  does  not  mean  that  his  human  nature  was  made  divine  nature. 
Omnipotence  could  not  transform  his  humanity  into  divinity,  because 
that  would  be  the  same  as  to  produce  divinity,  or  create  a  Creator. 
But  supposing  his  human  nature  could  have  been  made  divine  nature ; 
yet  that  would  have  prevented  his  being  God  and  man  in  two  natures 
and  but  one  person,  which  is  what  he  professed  to  be. 

Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does  his  human  nature's  being  personally 
united  with  his  divine  nature  mean,  that  his  divine  nature  was  made 
human  nature.  For  there  was  the  same  impossibility  of  degrading  his 
divinity  into  humanity,  as  of  exalting  his  humanity  into  divinity.  And 
could  this  have  been  done,  it  would  have  equally  prevented  his  being 
what  he  professed  to  be,  God  and  man  in  one  person. 

Nor  does  his  human  nature's  being  personally  united  with  his 
divine  nature,  mean  that  his  two  natures  were  mixed  or  blended  to- 
gether. For  it  evidently  appears,  from  Scripture,  that  he  personally 
possessed  every  divine  perfection  and  every  human  quality,  except  sin. 
He  discovered,  in  the  course  of  his  life,  human  ignorance  and  divine 
knowledge;  human  wants  and  divine  fulness;  human  weakness  and 
divine  power;  human  dependence  and  divine  independence. 

But,  if  the  personal  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  does  not 
mean,  that  his  humanity  became  divinity  nor  his  divinity  became  human- 
ity, nor  that  these  were  mixed  or  blended  together,  then  the  question 
still  lecurs,  what  is  meant  by  Christ's  being  one  person  in  two  natures? 
I  answer,  the  man  Jesus,  who  had  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul, 
was  united  with  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  in  such  a  manner  as 
laid  a  foundation  for  him  to  say  with  propriety  that  he  was  man, 
that  he  was  God,  and  that  he  was  both  God  and  man ;  and  as  laid  a 
foundation  also  to  ascribe  what  he  did  as  God  and  suffered  as  man,  to 
one  and  the  self-same  person.  If  any  should  here  ask,  how  could  his 
two  natures  be  thus  personally  united?  We  can  only  say,  it  is  a  mys- 
tery. And  there  is  no  avoiding  a  mystery  with  respect  to  Christ.  His 
conception  was  a  mystery.  And  if  we  admit  the  mystery  of  his  con- 
ception, why  should  we  hesitate  to  admit  the  mystery  of  the  personal 
union  between  his  two  natures?  If  we  only  admit  this,  all  Christ  said 
concerning  himself  is  easy  and  intelligible.1 

Upon  the  preceding  page  Dr.  Emmons  says  :  — 

There  remains  no  other  ground,  therefore,  upon  which  he  [Christ] 
could  assert  his  divinity,  but  that  of  his  being  God  and  man,  in  two  dis- 

1  Works  of  Nathauael  Emmons,  d.d.,  Boston,  1842,  vol.  iv,  p.  5s»l. 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


129 


tinct  natures  and  one  person.  [Italics  ours.]  A  personal  union  between 
his  divine  and  human  natures  would  properly  constitute  him  a  divine 
person.  And  it  appears  from  his  own  expressions  that  he  did  assert 
his  divinity  upon  this  ground.  He  says,  '  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to 
heaven  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man, 
which  is  in  heaven.'  Here  he  represents  his  one  individual  person  as 
being  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  at  one  and  the  same  time.  And 
upon  the  supposition  of  his  human  and  divine  natures  being  personally 
united,  he  might  properly  say  this ;  but  upon  no  other  supposition. 

A  Legal  Interpretation  of  the  Creed-statement. 

These  statements  of  Dr,  Emmons  must  be  accepted  as  an 
authoritative  interpretation  of  the  language  of  the  Andover  Creed, 
where  it  says  that  "  the  eternal  Son  of  God"  "  became  man,  and 
continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  per- 
son forever."  The  very  phrase  of  the  Creed,  "in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person,"  is  found  in  the  second  of  the  above 
citations  from  Dr.  Emmons.  This  is  significant.  Dr.  Emmons 
assisted  in  the  writing  of  the  Creed.  He  stands  in  history  as 
one  of  the  greatest  of  New  England's  great  theologians.  He 
was  one  of  the  class  who  called  themselves  Consistent  Calvinists. 
He  knew  what  that  Consistent  Calvinism  is  which  Andover  Sem- 
inary was  founded  to  maintain  and  inculcate.  The  above  cita- 
tions, therefore,  constitute  a  trustworthy  and  legal  interpretation 
of  the  language  of  the  Andover  Creed  respecting  the  two  natures 
in  the  one  Person  of  Christ.  And  we  affirm,  without  fear  of 
contradiction,  that  these  declarations  of  Dr.  Emmons,  and  the 
affirmations  of  the  defendant  already  cited  from  The  Andover 
Review  and  11  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  upon  the  great  doctrine 
of  the  Deity  of  our  Lord  in  his  earthly  life,  are  in  absolute  and 
irreconcilable  antagonism. 

The  Defendant  in  Conflict  with  the  Creed. 

Dr.  Emmons  and  the  Andover  Creed  declare  that  Christ  in  his 
earthly  life  was  possessed  of  infinite  attributes.  The  defendant 
affirms  that  our  Lord  was  not  then  possessed  of  infinite  attributes. 
Dr.  Emmons  and  the  Andover  Creed  declare  that  Christ  in  his 
earthly  life  was  "  God  and  man"  —  absolute  God  and  real  man. 
The  defendant  declares  that  our  Lord  was  not  absolute  God  — 
that  is,  was  not  "God  and  man"  in  the  sense  given  to  these 


130 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


words  by  Consistent  Calvinism.  Dr.  Emmons  and  the  Andover 
Creed  affirm  that  our  Lord  when  in  the  flesh  had  "  two  distinct 
natures,"  a  divine  nature  and  a  human  nature.  But  the  defend- 
ant, in  The  Andover  Review  and  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
as  already  shown,  denies  that  our  Lord  while  in  the  flesh  had  "  two 
distinct  natures,"  but  teaches  that  he  had  only  one  nature,  and 
that  a  human  nature,  which  human  nature  is  divine  only  in  the 
sense  in  which  every  man's  human  nature  is  divine.  Consist- 
ent Calvinism,  according  to  Dr.  Emmons,  denies  that  Christ's 
"human  nature  was  made  divine  nature."  But  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy  "  teaches  that  Christ's  human  nature  was  made  divine 
nature,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  all  human  nature  is  made 
divine,  and  in  no  other  sense.  Consistent  Calvinism,  as  repre- 
sented by  Dr.  Emmons,  denies  that  Christ's  "  divine  nature  was 
made  human  nature."  But  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  teaches 
that  Christ  had  no  divine  nature  distinct  from  his  human  nature  ; 
that  he  had  diviueness,  but  all  the  divineness  he  had  was  in  his 
human  nature ;  and  that  all  men  have  a  like  divineness,  the 
amount  of  which  in  Christ  and  in  all  men  is  determined  by  the 
measure  of  the  capacity  of  each  individual  to  receive  Deity. 
Consistent  Calvinism,  according  to  Dr.  Emmons,  affirms  that  the 
two  natures  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ  were  not  "mixed  or 
blended  together.  For  it  evidently  appears  from  Scripture  that 
he  personally  possessed  every  divine  perfection,  and  every  human 
quality  except  sin."  But  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  while  it 
denies  the  existence  of  "  two  distinct  natures  "  in  Christ,  yet 
sometimes  appears  to  teach  that  divinity  and  humanity  were 
"mixed  or  blended  together"  in  Christ,  and  also  in  every  other 
man.  Consistent  Calvinism,  as  expounded  by  Dr.  Emmons, 
states  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
the  one  person  of  Christ  in  this  language  :  — 

The  man  Jesus  .  .  .  was  united  with  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity 
in  such  a  manner  as  laid  a  foundation  for  him  to  say  with  propriety 
that  he  was  man,  that  he  was  God,  and  that  he  was  God  and  man ;  and 
as  laid  a  foundation  also  to  ascribe  what  he  did  as  God  and  suffered  as 
man,  to  one  and  the  self-same  person. 

Dr.  Emmons,  speaking  as  a  Consistent  Calvinist,  does  not  pre- 
tend to  understand  and  explain  the  manner  of  this  union  of 
"  God  and  man  "  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ.    He  simply  says, 


Second  Particular  Complaiyit. 


131 


"  It  is  a  mystery."  But  the  defendant  represents  that  in  the  one 
person  of  Christ,  in  his  earthly  life,  there  was  no  such  mystery  as 
the  union  of  a  human  nature  with  the  divine  nature  of  the 
eternal  Son  of  God,  who  was  "the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory  "  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  But 
"it  is  the  belief,"  he  dogmatically  affirms,  "that  God  was  in 
Christ  so  far  as  God  can  manifest  his  life  in  a  human  personal- 
ity at  a  given  period  in  history."  1  The  defendant  also  declares 
that  "  all  the  experiences,  whether  active  or  passive  "  of  Christ's 
humanity  "  were  those  of  a  nature  created  capacious  of  Deity." 
And  he  adds,  "  This  is  true  also  of  other  men  according  to  then1 
measure."2  (Italics  ours.)  Thus  in  the  view  of  the  defendant, 
there  is  evidently  no  more  mystery  in  the  union  of  the  divine  and 
the  human  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ  than  there  is  in  the  union 
of  the  divine  and  the  human  in  any  other  man.  The  only  mys- 
tery in  either  case  is  that  of  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  God 
with  all  men  and  creatures  and  things  in  the  universe  —  the  mys- 
tery of  Pantheism. 

But  what  we  wish  to  press  upon  the  attention  of  the  Board  of 
Visitors  is  the  undeniable  and  irreconcilable  conflict  between  Con- 
sistent Calvinism  and  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  upon  the  great 
and  decisive  question  of  the  Deity  of  our  Lord  in  his  earthly  life. 
We  claim  to  have  demonstrated  that  the  defendant,  in  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy  "  and  in  his  other  writings,  does  not  teach,  upon 
this  vital  question,  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed  and  of  Consistent 
Calvinism,  which  he  has  promised  to  teach,  but  that  he  denies  this 
doctrine  of  the  Creed  in  toto. 

A  Finite  Being  Becomes  an  Infinite  Being. 

(e)  But  we  must  not  forget  that  while  these  progressives  hold 
that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  in  his  earthly  life  was  not  "God  and 
man  in  two  distinct  natures,"  —  was  not,  indeed,  the  absolute 
God  at  all,  — but  only  a  man  capacious  of  Deity  as  are  all  other 
men  and  creatures  according  to  their  measure,  yet  these  divines 
also  hold  that  Christ  in  his  glorified  state,  both  before  and  after 
his  Incarnation,  was  truly  the  absolute  God,  omniscient,  omni- 
present, almighty,  the  Creator,  who  in  some  sense  made  all  things, 
and  without  whom  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made. 

1  Andover  Review,  October,  1892,  p.  398.      2  Prog.  Orth.  p.  21. 


132 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


It  must  also  be  kept  in  mind  that,  according  to  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  while  this  same  eternal  Son  of  God  in  his  earthly  life 
had  only  a  human  nature,  and  was  as  truly  ignorant,  weak,  and 
limited  in  all  his  faculties  and  powers  as  any  other  man  at  that 
period  in  history,  yet  in  his  glorified  existence  He  was  once  and  is 
now  the  life  of  his  own  entire  universe,  attached  to  every  being 
and  thing  in  it  "  not  externally  but  vitally,"  so  that  if  the  attach- 
ment were  broken,  the  universe  would  perish. 

Vital  Questions. 

(/)  Now  in  view  of  these  beliefs,  set  forth  with  so  much  confi- 
dence by  the  defendant  and  his  progressive  associates,  we  mod- 
estly raise  this  question :  When  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  the 
Second  Distinction  in  the  Godhead,  "  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory  "  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost  —  when 
He  ceased  to  be  God,  and  became  man  with  only  a  human  nature, 
what  became  of  the  universe  of  which  He,  and  He  alone,  was  the 
life?  Did  it  perish  at  the  first  moment  of  the  Incarnation?  If 
it  did  not  perish,  then  did  the  Creator  and  the  Preserver  of  all 
things  in  his  Incarnation  cease  to  be  God? 

Another  question  :  When  the  Second  Distinction  in  the  Trinity, 
"the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory"  with  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  ceased  to  be  God,  and  became  man, 
with  only  a  human  nature,  what  became  of  the  Triune  God  him- 
self? Was  an  infinite  vacancy  made  in  his  Being?  Did  the  im- 
mutable God  become,  in  the  Incarnation,  changeable  and  imper- 
fect? Was  there  suddeuly  an  inconceivably  vast  deficiency  in  the 
very  constitution  of  the  Godhead?  Was  not  only  the  universe, 
but  even  the  Triune  God  himself,  blotted  out  of  existence  at  the 
first  moment  of  the  Incarnation?  If  not,  then  did  the  eternal  Son 
of  God  cease  to  be  God  when  He  became  man  ? 

The  defendant  and  his  progressive  compeers  claim  that  they 
are  standing  for  liberty  to  hold  and  teach  the  truth  as  they  under- 
stand it  —  "the  larger,  broader  truth  of  to-day."  Judged  by 
their  own  public  utterances,  their  position  appears  to  be  that  if, 
for  instance,  the  Andover  Creed,  which  they  have  entered  into  a 
contract  to  "  maintain  and  inculcate,"  does  not,  in  their  opinion, 
state  the  truth  respecting  the  Deity  of  our  Lord  in  his  earthly  life, 
'hen  the  way  out  of  their  difficulty  is  not  for  them  to  resign  their 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


133 


professorships,  but  to  stand  at  all  costs  for  liberty  to  break  their 
promises  and  to  teach  what  they  believe  to  be  the  truth  upon  this 
momentous  subject,  in  spite  of  the  Creed,  of  the  decision  of  the 
Visitors,  and  of  the  known  belief  and  intention  of  the  Founders. 
We  take  them  for  a  moment  upon  their  own  legally  and  morally 
false  ground,  and  ask,  What  is  the  truth  respecting  the  Deity  of 
our  Lord  in  his  earthly  life?  Is  it  the  simple,  clear,  and  scriptural 
statement  of  the  Creed,  or  is  it  what  we  have  shown  to  be  the 
pantheistic  vagaries,  the  sheer  dogmatism,  the  brazen  self-contra- 
dictions, and  the  absolute  absurdities  of  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy"?   Is  it  true  that  the  finite  can  become  infinite? 

TriE  Andover  Creed  Glorifies  Christ. 
Fifthly,  Consistent  Calvinism,  as  formulated  in  the  Andover 
Creed,  exalts  and  honors  our  Incarnate  Lord  by  distinctly  affirming 
his  absolute  Deity,  and  thus  instructing  the  Seminary  students, 
and  through  them  the  world,  to  adore  and  glorify  Him  to  whom, 
while  He  was  yet  in  the  flesh,  his  disciples  unrebuked  paid  honors 
due  only  to  the  Most  High,  and  who  was  declared  by  the  Apostle 
Paul  to  be  "  over  all,  God  blessed  forever,"  at  the  same  time  that 
He  was  of  human  descent,  or,  in  other  words,  was  truly  man. 

The  "  New  Theology  Degrades  Christ." 

But  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  as  set  forth  in  recent  editorials 
and  in  earlier  publications  of  the  progressive  professors,  dishon- 
ors our  Incarnate  Redeemer  by  denying  that  He  was  "(?od  and 
man  in  two  distinct  natures ,"  and  by  representing  that  he  was 
only  "  capacious  of  Deity"  in  the  same  sense  in  which  all  other 
men  and  creatures  are,  thus  instructing  the  Seminary  students, 
and  through  them  multitudes  of  people,  to  degrade  our  adorable 
Saviour  in  their  thoughts  and  belief  to  the  level  of  mere  men 
and  other  creatures. 

Upon  this  high  matter,  therefore,  of  exalting  and  adoring 
Christ  as  the  unchangeable  Son  of  God,  the  antagonism  of 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  to  the  Andover  Creed  and  Statutes  is 
intense  and  absolute.  The  pantheistic  idea  of  God  advocated  by 
the  new-departure  professors,  which  represents  him  as  existing 
in  quantity,  as  capable  of  being  divided  into  portions  and  dis- 
tributed to  all  men  and  creatures,  to  each  according  to  his  capa- 
ciousness mathematically  measured,  dishonors  the  Almighty  by 


134 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


divesting  him  of  his  personality.  The  pantheistic  conception  of 
our  Incarnate  Lord  as  having  only  a  human  nature  and  as  being 
simply  receptive  of  Deity  as  are  all  men,  beings,  and  things  in 
the  universe  according  to  their  measure  mathematically  estimated, 
degrades  Christ,  by  divesting  him  of  the  eternity  and  unchange- 
ableness  of  his  Deity.  No  indignity  greater  than  this  can  be  put 
upon  the  eternal  Son  of  God.  Let  us  not  be  deceived.  Panthe- 
ism is  a  subtle  and  seductive  error.  Comparatively  few  people 
of  evangelical  faith,  however  intelligent  they  may  be,  are  familiar 
with  pantheistic  thought  and  theories.  This  gives  Pantheism  a 
marked  advantage,  which  it  has  not  been  slow  to  improve.  To 
say  that  Christ  Jesus  ''was  capacious  of  Deity"  may  seem  to 
some  minds  simply  a  true  and  orthodox  statement.  But  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy  "  gives  utterance  to  the  same  sentiment  in 
plainer  words  when  it  says  that  "  God  was  in  Christ,  so  far  as 
God  can  manifest  his  life  in  a  human  personality  at  a  given 
period  fta  history."  It  also  gives  expression  to  this  same  panthe- 
istic conception  in  terms  still  more  perspicuous  when  it  repre- 
sents that  as  God  was  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  so  is  He  in  all  men, 
beings,  and  things  in  the  universe,  according  to  the  measure  of 
their  capaciousness.  The  regnant  principle  here  is  unmistakable 
and  undeniable.  It  is  Pantheism.  The  man  Christ  Jesus  and  all 
men,  all  beings,  and  all  nature  are  replete  with  Deity.  They  all 
have  God  in  themselves,  not  by  his  presence  merel}',  but  by  his 
being  organically  and  vitally  united  to  themselves.  Heuce,  all 
men  and  all  nature  are  as  truly  divine  as  the  Lord  Jesus  was. 
They  do  not  all,  however,  have  the  same  amount  of  divineness, 
but  each  being  and  thing  has  its  portion.  The  conception  is 
largely  materialistic  and  mechanical.  The  question  of  Christ's 
divinity  and  of  the  divinity  of  every  man,  beast,  and  thing  be- 
comes a  mere  question  of  quantity-  God  exists  in  the  universe 
in  parts,  which  are  circumscribed  and  measured  off.  Everything 
has  God  in  it,  so  far  as  it  is  capable  of  holding  and  manifesting 
Him.  Of  course  God  may  transcend  the  beings  and  things  which 
contain  only  portions  of  Him  in  vital  union  with  themselves. 
Still,  according  to  this  theory,  God  is  not  infinite.  Nothing  is  in- 
finite that  is  made  up  of  parts  ;  but  some  things  are  more  capa- 
cious of  Deity  than  others  are.  A  towering  and  broad-spreading 
elm  tree  has  more  of  God  in  it  than  a  mullein  stock  has.    A  turtle 


» 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


135 


has  more  of  God  within  it  and  vitally  united  to  it  than  an  oyster 
has  ;  an  ox  has  more  of  God  in  him  than  a  turtle  has  ;  a  man 
has  more  of  God  than  an  ox  has.  Some  men  have  more  of  God 
in  vital  union  with  themselves  than  other  men  have.  The  man 
Christ  Jesus  had  more  of  God  vitally  united  to  himself  than  any 
other  man  had  "  at  Christ's  period  in  history."  He  was  a  mere 
man,  but  among  men  he  was  a  unique  person.  His  uniqueness 
was  his  larger  amount  of  divineness.  He  was  conscious  of  his 
superior  divineness  ;  but  he  was  not  conscious  of  being  God,  for 
he  was  not  God.  Lord  Bacon  was  a  unique  person  on  account 
of  his  extraordinary  intellectual  power.  He  was  more  capacious 
of  God  than  most  men  were  at  his  period  in  history,  and  this 
larger  amount  of  divinity  in  him  constituted  his  uniqueness. 
All  humanity  is  divine  because  it  is  vitally  united  to  God.  God 
is  in  every  man  as  his  life,  and  therefore  as  an  essential  part 
of  his  being;  and  every  man  is  in  God  as  an  essential  part  of 
his  Being.  This  is  "the  divinity  of  humanity"  of  which  we 
have  recently  heard  so  much.  After  the  same  manner  God  is 
vitally  united  to,  and  identified  with,  the  entire  universe.  This  is 
outright  Pantheism.  The  defendant,  of  course,  will  deny  this 
statement ;  but  we  challenge  him  to  show  how  this  theory  of 
God's  relation  to  the  world  and  to  all  beings  and  things  in  it 
differs  essentially  from  the  old  heathen  Pantheism  of  ancient 
Greece  and  India. 

The  Teaching  in  Andover  Lecture  Rooms. 

According  to  the  belief  and  teaching  of  the  defendant,  as  the 
complainants  charge,  Christ  in  his  earthly  life  was  a  being 
limited  in  all  his  attributes,  capacities,  and  attainments.  In 
proof  of  this  charge,  we  claim  to  have  shown,  from  the  writings 
of  the  defendant,  that  he  holds  and  teaches,  as  a  doctrine  of  his 
"  new  theology,"  that  Christ,  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  was 
not  God ;  that  he  was  divine  only  in  the  sense  in  which  all  men 
are  divine ;  that  he  was  a  member,  and  nothing  more  than  a 
member,  of  the  human  race ;  that  like  all  other  men  he  was 
ignorant ;  and  that  he  made  mistakes  and  blunders,  and  did  not 
know  that  he  made  them. 

In  further  evidence  that  such  is  the  teaching  of  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  we  now  add,  that  similar  views  of  the  ignorance  of 


136 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


our  incarnate  Lord  have  been  set  forth  in  at  least  one  of  the 
lecture  rooms  in  Andover  Seminary,  under  the  instruction  of  an 
advocate  of  "  the  new  theology."  Students  at  the  public  exam- 
inations are  expected  to  present  the  views  which  have  been 
maintained  and  inculcated  by  their  instructors.  At  such  an  ex- 
amination held  some  two  j'ears  ago,  a  student  boldly  represented 
that  Christ  in  his  earthly  life  was  so  ignorant  that  he  did  not 
always  know  the  nature  of  the  diseases  he  healed.  For  instance, 
he  supposed  that  he  cast  devils  out  of  the  demoniacs  at  Gadara, 
when,  without  much  doubt,  he  only  cured  them  of  epilepsy.  In 
his  own  opinion,  that  student  who  was  under  examination,  living 
as  he  does  in  a  more  enlightened  "period  in  history,"  knows 
more  than  Christ  knew,  and  can  correct  his  errors  ;  and  at  the 
examination  he  claimed  that  under  the  instruction  of  his  theo- 
logical teacher  he  had  corrected  one  of  them.  This  student, 
therefore,  in  this  particular  of  superior  personal  knowledge,  has 
more  divineness  in  him  than  Christ  had.  The  professor  has 
more  knowledge  than  the  student  has,  and  so  in  this  particular 
has  more  of  God  in  him  than  the  student  contained.  For  God 
is  light  as  well  as  life ;  he  is  truth  and  knowledge  as  well  as 
power  and  goodness. 

The  apostle  John  affirms  that  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  .  .  . 
All  things  were  made  by  him  ;  and  without  him  was  not  anything 
made  that  was  made."  But  according  to  the  progressive  teach- 
ing, when  the  Word  became  flesh  and  walked  about  among  men 
in  Galilee  his  memory  failed  him  utterly.  He  had  not  the  least 
recollection  of  his  stupendous  work  of  creation.  John,  it  seems, 
knew  that  He  who  became  flesh  created  the  worlds,  and  that 
without  Him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.  But  the 
eternal  Son  of  God  Incarnated,  the  progressive  professors  inform 
us,  was  "  not  conscious  that  He  created  the  stars."  The  disciple 
John,  then,  when  he  wrote  the  Fourth  Gospel,  knew  more  about 
his  Lord  than  his  Incarnate  Lord  knew  about  himself.  John, 
therefore,  had  more  divinity  in  him  than  Christ  Incarnate  had. 
Why,  then,  should  we  not  have  more  confidence  in  the  revelations 
of  John  than  in  those  of  Christ?  If  Christ  was  so  ignorant  in 
the  days  of  his  humiliation,  how  can  we  accept  the  declarations 
he  then  made  respecting  the  Father  and  his  will,  respecting  the 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


137 


Holy  Spirit  and  the  way  of  salvation,  or  believe  any  of  his 
affirmations  concerning  his  own  mission  and  kingdom,  concerning 
his  power  to  forgive  sins,  and  to  secure  to  penitent  and  believing 
sinners  the  life  everlasting  with  himself  in  glory  ineffable  ?  Can 
any  man  in  his  public  teaching  impute  such  ignorance  and  falli- 
bility to  the  Redeemer  of  lost  men  without  doing  his  best  to  de- 
grade the  Person  of  that  Redeemer,  and  to  defame  his  character 
before  the  world?  Who  will  deny  that  this  debasing  view  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  must  be  regarded  as  one  of  those  doctrinal  errors 
which  every  professor  refers  to,  when,  in  taking  the  Creed,  he 
solemnly  promises  that  he  will  oppose  "all  heresies  and  errors, 
ancient  or  modern,  which  may  be  opposed  to  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
or  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men  "  ?  Can  any  intelligent  person 
believe  that  the  holding  and  teaching  of  such  low  and  derogatory 
views  respecting  Christ,  by  any  professor  on  the  Andover  Foun- 
dations, is  not  a  gross  violation  of  a  most  sacred  promise  and  an 
open  defiance  of  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary? 

Miracles  of  Our  Lord  the  Product  of  Natural  Human 
Forces. 

But  still  further  reproach  is  cast  upon  our  Lord  and  Saviour  by 
these  progressive  professors,  in  one  of  their  recent  editorials, 
through  their  manner  of  accounting  for  his  miracles.  They  con- 
descendingly admit  that  his  miracles  were  not  mere  wonders  and 
deceptions,  but  were  real  and  beneficent  deeds.  His  healing 
power  is  thought  by  them  to  have  been  "  inherent,"  whatever  that 
may  mean.  Their  purpose  evidently  is  to  explain  the  miracles  of 
our  Lord  as  resulting  from  the  working  of  purely  natural  forces, 
to  the  utter  exclusion  of  all  supernatural  power  in  Christ.  Re- 
ferring to  our  Lord's  power  of  instantaneous  healing  they  say :  — 

It  has  been  aptly  called  his  health-power.  The  healing  influence  of  a 
healthy  person  over  a  diseased  person  has  had  many  illustrations  and, 
at  the  present  time,  is  recognized,  as  it  never  has  been  before,  as  the  exer- 
cise of  a  real  power  which  is  but  little  understood.  Such  a  power  Jesus 
had  to  the  fullest  degree.  That  which  is  vaguely  suggested  by  modern 
mind  cure,  faith  cure,  or  even,  possibly,  by  hypnotic  and  mesmeric  influ- 
ence was  complete  in  Jesus.  It  is  much  more  probable  that  he  had  such 
a  health-power  over  bodies  and  minds  than  that  the  narrative  of  his 
healings  is  a  pure  fabrication,  or  an  unfounded  tradition.1 

1  Andover  Review,  October,  1892,  p.  398. 


138 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


That  is,  our  Lord's  mighty  works  of  mercy,  wrought  in  relief 
of  the  blind,  the  lame,  the  deaf,  the  lepers,  wrought  in  the 
instantaneous  creating  of  food  sufficient  to  feed  thousands 
of  hungry  men  and  women,  in  casting  out  devils,  and  in  rais- 
ing the  dead  to  life,  were  not  supernatural  at  all,  but  were 
accomplished  by  the  man  Christ  Jesus  in  the  exercise  of  natural 
powers  known  to  be  possessed  by  other  men  in  various  degrees. 
These  human  powers  were  abnormally  great  in  Christ.  He  was 
not  God.  He  did  not  create  the  stars.  But  he  was  a  mon- 
strosity of  human  health-power,  and  of  other  powers  merely 
human. 

Other  Christs  Should  Appear. 

If  such  views  of  our  Incarnate  Redeemer  are  true,  there  is  no 
reason  whatever  why  other  Christs  should  not  have  appeared 
on  the  earth  long  before  this  time.  Indeed,  among  all  the  myriads 
of  men  there  ought  to  be  at  least  a  few  Christs  living  now  ;  and  if 
these  professors  are  teaching  a  '■'■real  theology,"  as  they  declare 
they  are,  they  are  bound  to  find  a  real  Christ  now  in  the  flesh  and 
put  him  on  exhibition.  Perhaps  some  one  of  these  progressive 
professors  themselves  is  the  very  man  of  whom  it  shall  soon  be 
said,  "  Lo  !  here  is  Christ !  "  But  whatever  marvelous  evolutions 
of  humanity  are  yet  to  come,  some  things  will  abide.  The  gospel 
of  Christ  is  an  "  everlasting"  and  a  changeless  gospel.  The  An- 
dover  Creed  is  by  statute  unchangeably  what  it  is.  Honesty  and 
dishonesty  will  remain  forever  the  very  same  things  they  always 
have  been  ;  and  we  submit  that  no  man  who  does  not  believe 
that  "  the  Eternal  Son  of  God"  "  became  man  and  continues  to 
be  God  and  man,  in  tioo  distinct  natures  and  one  person  forever," 
can  ever  honestly,  or  by  any  moral  or  legal  right,  occupy  a  pro- 
fessor's chair  in  Andover  Seminary. 

A  Protest  in  the  Name  of  the  Founders. 

We  cannot  close  this  part  of  our  argument  without,  in  the 
name  of  the  Founders  of  this  Seminary  and  in  memory  of  their 
reverent  piety,  putting  on  record  our  protest  against  the  deroga- 
tory and  impious  representation  of  the  being  and  character  of 
our  Lord  which  the  defendant  and  his  associates  have  made  in 
their  explanation  of  his  miracles.    The  suggestion  that  the  Incar- 


Second  Particular  Complaint. 


139 


nate  Son  of  God  was  a  mesmerizer,  and  wrought  some  of  his 
miracles  "  by  hypnotic  and  mesmeric  influence,"  seems  to  us  to  be 
as  shocking  to  reverent  piety  as  it  is  revolting  to  refined  and 
scholarly  taste.  We  cannot  but  think  that  such  language  con- 
cerning our  Lord  and  Saviour,  if  heard  amidst  the  profanity 
and  tobacco-smoke  of  a  crowded  barroom,  would  even  there  be 
deemed  indecent  and  sacrilegious.  How  then  should  it  be  charac- 
terized when  it  is  uttered  by  a  professor  in  an  evangelical  Theo- 
logical Seminary?  How  is  this  utterance  to  be  accounted  for? 
Of  what  can  it  be  the  product,  if  not  of  impiety  or  of  senility  or 
of  insanity  ?  We  judge  no  man  ;  but  we  think  it  simply  astound- 
ing that  sensible,  honorable,  and  well-balanced  Christian  men,  who 
have  voluntarily  assumed  the  sacred  task  of  fitting  Christian 
young  men  for  the  gospel  ministry,  and  who  have  subscribed  to 
the  solemn  declarations  which  accompany  the  Andover  Creed, 
should  ever  say  or  even  suggest  that  our  adorable  Lord  and 
Redeemer  was  a  mesmerizer ! 

We  appeal  to  the  Board  of  Visitors.  Can  you,  Gentlemen,  as 
you  remember  the  Christian  faith  and  the  reverent  piety  of  the 
Founders,  and  in  view  of  your  own  sacred  obligations  as  the 
Supreme  Guardians  of  Andover  Seminary,  allow  any  man,  who 
believes  and  teaches  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  only  a  little 
more  divine  than  other  men  at  his  period  in  history  were,  and  that 
some  of  his  astounding  miracles  were  simply  the  performances  of 
a  mesmerizer,  to  remain  a  professor  on  the  Andover  Foundations 
any  longer  time  than  you  need  to  write  out  legally  and  properly 
the  official  papers  that  shall  dismiss  him  from  his  office  ? 


IV. 


THIRD   PARTICULAR  COMPLAINT. 

Our  third  specific  complaint  is  that  Professor  Smyth,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  requirements  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  Statutes, 
maintains  and  teaches  that  no  man  has  power  or  capacity  to 
repent  ivithout  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ. 

Professor  Smyth  defended  himself  against  this  charge  at  his  trial 
before  the  Board  of  Visitors  in  December,  1886.  But  in  their 
judgment  he  did  not  refute  it,  for  in  their  decision  they  declared 
this  charge  proved,  and  made  it  one  of  the  grounds  on  which 
they  removed  the  professor  from  his  office  in  Andover  Seminary. 

Every  professor  in  taking  the  Seminary  Creed  makes  this 
declaration  :  — 

I  moreover  believe  .  .  .  that  God's  decrees  perfectly  consist  with 
human  liberty;  God's  universal  agency  with  the  agency  of  man;  and 
man's  dependence  with  his  accountability ;  that  man  has  understanding 
and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him,  so  that  nothing 
but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation. 

Dr.  Spring  on  Natural  and  Moral  Ability. 

Dr.  Samuel  Spring,  in  consultation  with  other  Consistent  Cal- 
vinists,  as  has  already  been  stated,  wrote  the  Andover  Creed. 
His  views  upon  the  question  of  man's  ability  to  repent  and  to 
obey  all  the  commands  which  God  has  addressed  to  men  are  well 
known.    In  one  of  his  publications  he  wrote  :  — 

Natural  ability  is  the  intellectual  and  bodily  strength  of  man  to  per- 
form every  action  which  God  requires  of  him.  ...  As  natural  ability 
consists  in  having  intellectual  and  bodily  strength  to  perform  every 
action  required  of  man,  it  is  evident  that  moral  ability  must  consist  in  a 
willing  mind.1 

In  view  of  these  statements  of  Dr.  Spring,  it  is  impossible  to 
misunderstand  his  meaning  when  he  affirms  in  the  Creed  "  that 
man  has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all  that  God 

■Moral  Disquisitions,  by  Rev.  Samuel  Spring,  D.D.,pp.  172,  173. 

140 


Tliird  Particular  Complaint. 


141 


requires  of  him."  This  declaration  of  the  Creed  means  that  man 
has  "natural  ability  "  ;  that  is,  by  the  very  constitution  of  his 
being  man  has  all  needed  power  of  mind  and  of  body,  real  and 
full  power,  to  repent,  and  to  obey  every  command  which  God  has 
laid  upon  him.  That  this  is  the  meaning  is  also  made  evident  by 
the  next  statement  in  this  Creed  —  "  so  that  nothing  but  the  sin- 
ner's aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation."  No  natural 
inability,  therefore,  — no  inability  of  mind  or  of  body,  — prevents 
the  sinner  from  conforming  to  all  the  requirements  of  the  gospel ; 
and  in  conforming  to  them  he  ensures  his  salvation  in  Christ. 
If  he  does  not  repent,  it  is  simply  because  he  will  not.  His  un- 
willingness, however,  is  not  real  inability  ;  it  is  his  sin.  He  is 
responsible  for  it,  and  to  distinguish  it  from  natural  or  real 
inability  it  is  called  moral  inability.  The  Seminary  Creed  says  : 
"  that  being  morally  incapable  of  recovering  the  image  of  his 
Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is  justly  exposed  to 
eternal  damnation  ;  so  that  except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  can- 
not see  the  kingdom  of  God."  Man  needs  for  his  salvation  no 
new  capacity  or  faculty,  no  new  mental  or  bodily  power.  In 
regeneration  his  aversion  to  holiness  is  taken  away,  but  no  new 
natural  capacity  or  power  is  bestowed  upon  him.  Every  man  is 
of  himself  abundantly  able  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him. 
Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed  ;  and  every  Andover  professor 
once  in  every  five  years  solemnly  promises  to  "maintain  and 
inculcate,"  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  his  office,  this  doctrine,  as 
well  as  every  other  doctrine  expressed  in  the  Seminary  Creed. 

The  Andover  Progressives  on  Man's  Ability. 
But  what  is  the  doctrine  which  the  progressive  professors  are 
now  actually  maintaining  and  inculcating  respecting  man's  ability 
to  do  what  God  requires  of  him?  Samples  of  their  belief  and 
teaching  in  this  particular  are  presented  in  the  following  statements 
quoted  from  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  :  — 

It  might  be  enough  to  suggest,  at  this  point,  that  the  power  and  incli- 
nation to  repent  are  not  found  except  when  God  is  revealed  in  Christ ; 
that  only  because  Christ  has  brought  God  to  men  in  a  new  light  are 
they  stirred  to  penitence.1 

So  we  have  become  accustomed  to  the  thought  that  Christ  has  an  or- 
ganic relation  to  the  race.    He  is  an  individual,  but  an  individual  vitally 

i  Prog.  Orth.  p.  47. 


142 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


related  to  every  human  being.  He  preferred  to  be  called  the  Son  of 
Man.   Paul  sees  in  Him  the  Head  of  humanity,  the  second  Adam.  .  .  . 

Humanity  may  thus  be  thought  of  as  offering  something  to  God  of 
eminent  value.  When  Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers.  When  Christ  is 
sorrowful,  the  race  is  sorrowful.  Christ  realizes  what  humanity  could 
not  realize  for  itself.  The  race  may  be  conceived  as  approaching  God, 
and  signifying  its  penitence  by  pointing  to  Christ,  and  by  giving  ex- 
pression in  Him  to  repentance  which  no  words  could  utter.  Thus  we 
can  regard  Him  as  our  substitute,  not  because  He  stands  apart,  not  be- 
cause He  is  one  and  the  race  another,  but  because  He  is  so  intimately 
identified  with  us  and  because  in  essential  respects  the  life  of  every 
one  is,  or  may  be,  locked  in  with  his.  .  .  .  Here  is  the  truth  of 
IVIcLeod  Campbell's  view  of  atonement.  The  entire  race  repents  or  is 
capable  of  repenting  through  Christ.  It  renders  in  Him  a  complete 
repentance.  He  is  the  Amen  of  humanity  to  the  righteousness  of  God's 
love,  to  the  ill  desert  of  sin,  to  the  justice  of  God's  judgments.  .  .  . 

In  union  with  Christ,  who  brings  spiritual  truth  and  power  to  man, 
repentance  is  radical.  Man  left  to  himself  cannot  have  a  repentance 
which  sets  him  free  from  sin  and  death.  But  in  Christ  he  is  moved  to 
repentance  which  is  revolutionary;  in  Christ  he  can  express  repentance, 
for  in  union  with  Christ  he  adopts  the  feeling  of  Christ  concerning  sin 
against  the  God  of  love.  If  man  unaided  could  become  truly  repent- 
ant, he  would  become  holy,  and  would  be  the  child  of  God.  This  is 
admitted  by  Jonathan  Edwards.  But  it  is  only  in  Christ  that  he  has 
such  knowledge  of  God  and  of  himself  as  is  necessary  to  a  repentance 
which  is  revolutionary.  It  is  not  true,  we  admit  and  insist,  that  re- 
pentance without  Christ  is  availing  for  redemption,  for  man  of  himself 
cannot  repent;  .  .  .  [Italics  ours]  Christ's  sacrifice  avails  with  God 
because  it  is  adopted  to  bring  man  to  repentance.  ...  He  is  one,  in 
with  the  race,  who  has  the  power  of  bringing  it  into  sympathy  with  his 
own  feeling  toward  God  and  toward  sin,  and  so  God  looks  on  the  race 
as  having  this  power  in  Christ  —  a  power  which,  when  realized,  melts 
away  the  iron  fetters  of  what  we  call  necessity  and  fate.  .  .  . 

The  race  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  and  is  other  in  the  sight  of  God, 
because  different  in  fact,  because  containing  powers  for  repentance  and 
holiness  which,  without  Christ,  it  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  of.1 

God  does  not  become  propitious  because  man  repents  and  amends,  for 
that  is  beyond  man's  power.  He  becomes  propitious  because  Christ, 
laying  down  his  life,  makes  the  race  to  its  worst  individual  capable  of 
repenting,  obeying,  trusting.2 

Now  our  complaint  is  that  these  declarations  of  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  "  upon  the  subject  of  man's  ability  to  obey  God  are 
in  sharp  antagonism  to  the  declarations  of  the  Seminary  Creed. 

i  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  53-56.      2  Ibid.  p.  58. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


143 


The  Defendant  in  Conflict  with  the  Creed. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  the  Creed  is,  that  man  of  himself  has  real 
and  full  power  to  repent,  and  "to  do  all  that  God  requires  of 
him."  The  doctrine  of  the  "new  theology"  is,  that  "man  of 
himself  cannot  repent "  (p.  55).  The  contradiction  between  the 
two  theologies  at  this  point  is  positive  and  uncompromising.  It 
is  idle  for  a  new-departure  professor,  who  has  subscribed  to  the 
Creed  and  promised  to  maintain  and  inculcate  all  its  doctrines, 
to  attempt  to  vindicate  himself  against  this  charge  of  breaking 
his  promise,  by  replying,  as  the  defendant  does,  that  in  affirming 
man's  inability  to  repent,  he  had  reference  simply  to  his  "  moral 
inability,"  or  to  "  the  moral  helplessness  of  mankind  apart  from 
Christ."  The  defendant  nowhere  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
recognizes  the  vital  distinction  between  natural  inability  and 
moral  inability.  Besides,  it  is  inconceivable  that  had  he  intended 
to  affirm  simply  man's  "moral  inability "  to  repent,  he  should 
not  have  used  the  phrase  "  moral  inability."  But  he  did  not  use 
it.  On  the  contrary  he  declares  in  the  most  positive  terms  that 
"man  of  himself  cannot  repent";  that  the  human  race  without 
Christ  "  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  "  "of  powers  for  repentance 
and  holiness  "  ;  that  "  the  power  and  inclination  to  repent  are  not 
found,  except  when  God  is  revealed  in  Christ "  ;  and  that  to 
repent  "is  beyond  man's  power."  If  it  is  possible  to  affirm 
in  human  language  that  man  of  himself  has  no  power  to  obey 
God's  command  to  repent,  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  has  made 
that  affirmation.  But  the  Andover  Creed  declares  that  man  of 
himself  has  power  to  obey  that  divine  command,  and  "  to  do  all 
that  God  requires  of  him,"  and  thus  teaches  that  God  is  not 
guilty  of  commanding  men  to  do  what  they  have  no  power  to 
do,  and  then  threatening  to  inflict  upon  them  everlasting  punish- 
ment for  not  doing  it. 

The  Sinner  under  No  Obligation  to  Repent. 

2.  The  Creed  affirms  "that  nothing  but  the  sinner's  aversion 
to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation."  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
contradicts  this  statement  by  affirming  that  something  other  than 
the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness  —  namely,  his  absolute  inability 
to  repent  —  prevents  his  salvation.  This  teaching  relieves  the 
sinner  from  all  obligation  to  repent,  and  thus  antagonizes  both 


144 


TJiird  Particular  Comj^laint. 


the  Andover  Creed  and  the  declarations  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles. 

Impenitence  Not  a  Sin. 

3.  The  affirmation  of  the  Creed  is  that  man  has  real  and 
ample  power  to  repent.  Consequently,  if  he  does  not  repent, 
his  impenitence  is  his  sin,  and  it  is  not  safe  for  him  to  continue 
impenitent  one  moment,  for  in  so  doing  he  incurs  augmented 
guilt  before  God.  The  affirmation  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
is  that  man  of  himself  is  utterly  powerless  to  repent.  Conse- 
quently his  impenitence  is  not  his  sin,  and  he  incurs  no  guilt 
in  living  on  impenitent  and  dying  impenitent,  for  as  he  has  no 
power  to  repent  he  cannot  be  blamed  for  not  repenting.  Andover 
Seminary  was  not  founded  to  teach  such  a  doctrine,  but  exactly 
the  opposite  doctrine.  Yet  this  doctrine,  that  man  is  not 
responsible  for  his  impenitence,  is  now  taught  on  the  Andover 
Foundations. 

Personal  Repentance  Not  a  Jdst  Condition  of  Salvation. 

4.  According  to  the  Seminary  Creed,  as  man  has  ample  power 
to  repent,  God  has  justly  made  repentance  one  of  "  the  personal 
requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation,"  or  one  of  the  con- 
ditions upon  the  fulfilment  of  which  by  any  sinner  God  can 
graciously  and  righteously,  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  atonement 
for  the  sins  of  all  men,  grant  to  such  penitent  sinner  full 
forgiveness  and  the  life  everlasting.  But,  according  to  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy,"  as  man  has  no  power  of  any  kind  to  repent, 
God  cannot  justly  make  repentance  a  condition  of  the  sinner's 
salvation  ;  or,  if  He  does  make  it  a  condition,  justice  requires  that 
He  furnish  the  power  to  repent.  In  this  case,  however,  the 
furnishing  of  the  power  to  repent  is  not  of  grace,  but  of  debt. 
Such  a  gospel  is  not  the  gospel  of  the  Andover  Creed,  nor  the 
gospel  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  ;  nor  can  it  be  preached  as 
Christ  preached  his  own  gospel,  and  as  his  apostles  preached  it. 
It  would  be  ridiculously  absurd  for  a  preacher  glowing  with  zeal 
and  pathos  to  beseech  his  hearers  to  repent  of  their  sins,  when 
all  the.  while  he  and  they  alike  know  perfectly  well  that  they  have 
no  power  whatever  to  do  so  ;  and  equally  absurd  would  it  be  to 
urge  them  by  every  conceivable  argument  to  instant  repentance, 


Tliird  Particular  Complaint. 


145 


and  at  the  same  time  remind  them  that  while  they  are  in  them- 
selves utterly  destitute  of  power  to  repent,  yet  they  can,  in  some 
mysterious  way,  repent  in  the  repentance  of  another,  or  by  means 
of  some  mysterious  power  furnished  them  through  their  mysteri- 
ous and  vital  union  with  Christ.  Such  a  gospel  can  never  be 
honestly  preached  by  a  minister  of  common  sense  to  common- 
sense  people.  Such  a  gospel,  it  is  believed,  never  has  been 
preached  or  accepted,  save  by  a  few  visionary  men  who  may 
be  properly  designated  as  pantheistic  Universalists ;  for  the 
doctrine  that  the  entire  race  repents  in  Christ  is  outright  Uni- 
versalism. 

Repentance  in  Union  with  Christ. 

5.  The  Statute  of  Andover  Seminary  which  embodies  its  Creed 
requires  every  professor  to  "maintain  and  inculcate"  the  doc- 
trine, that  man  of  himself  has  natural  and  complete  ability  to 
repent  of  his  sins,  and  to  do  all  things  which  God  requires 
of  him.  But  the  advocates  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  who 
are  now  holding  chairs  in  Andovor  Seminary,  are  maintaining 
and  inculcating  the  doctrine,  that  while  man  of  himself  has  no 
natural  ability,  no  moral  ability,  no  ability  of  any  kind,  to  repent 
of  his  sins,  or  to  do  anything  which  God  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son 
requires  him  to  do,  yet,  "in  Christ,"  "in  union  with  Christ," 
"in  with  Christ,"  in  the  knowledge  of  himself,  of  truth,  and 
of  God  that  comes  to  him  by  being  "in  Christ,"  man  receives 
real  and  full  power  to  repent  of  his  sins,  and  to  do  all  which  God 
requires  of  him.  The  mutual  antagonism  of  these  two  doctrines 
is  absolute  and  uncompromising.  Such  samples  of  progressive 
teaching  as  the  following  should  be  kept  in  mind  :  — 

In  union  with  Christ,  who  brings  spiritual  truth  and  power  to  man, 
repentance  is  radical.  Man  left  to  himself  cannot  have  a  repentance 
which  sets  him  free  from  sin  and  death.  But  in  Christ  he  is  moved 
to  repentance  which  is  revolutionary ;  in  Christ  he  can  express  repent- 
ance, for  in  union  with  Christ  he  adopts  the  feeling  of  Christ  concerning 
sin  against  the  God  of  love.  .  .  .  But  it  is  only  in  Christ  that  he  has 
such  knowledge  of  God  and  of  himself  as  is  necessary  to  a  repentance 
which  is  revolutionary.  .  .  .  He  [Christ]  is  one,  in  with  the  race,  who 
has  the  power  of  bringing  it  into  sympathy  with  his  own  feeling  toward 
God  and  toward  sin.1    [The  italics  are  ours.] 

i  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  55,  56. 


146 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


The  Central  and  Vital  Principle  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

If  such  statements  as  these  are  true,  it  is  of  supreme  moment 
to  every  human  being  to  know  precisely  what  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy"  meaus  when  it  speaks  of  "man,"  that  is,  of  every 
member  of  the  human  race,  as  being  "  in  Christ,"  "  in  union  with 
Christ,''  and  of  Christ  as  beiug  "  in  with  the  race."  But  to  raise 
this  question  is  to  ask,  What  is  the  theory  which  is  accepted 
and  advocated  by  the  progressive  professors  in  Andovcr  Seminary 
respecting  the  relation  of  the  human  race,  and  of  every  member 
of  it,  to  Christ,  and  to  God  in  Christ.  The  following  statements 
of  the  advocates  of  this  theory  will  set  it  forth  with  sufficient 
clearness  for  our  present  purpose  :  — 

For  the  most  part,  a  single  line  of  inquiry  has  been  followed,  under 
the  guidance  of  a  central  and  vital  principle  of  Christianity,  namely,  the 
reality  of  Christ's  personal  relation  to  the  human  race  as  a  whole  and 
to  every  member  of  it, —  the  principle  of  the  universality  of  Christianity. 

This  principle  has  been  rapidly  gaining  of  late  in  its  power  over 
men's  thoughts  and  lives.  It  is  involved  in  the  church  doctrine  of  the 
constitution  of  Christ's  person.  .  .  .  We  have  sought  to  apply  this 
principle  to  the  solution  of  questions  which  are  now  more  than  ever 
before  engaging  the  attention  of  serious  and  devout  minds.  We  have 
endeavored  to  follow  its  guidance  faithfully  and  loyally,  and  witherso- 
ever it  might  lead.  We  have  trusted  it  wholly  and  practically.  ...  If 
we  have  anywhere  overestimated  or  underestimated  the  validity  and 
value  of  our  guiding  principle,  we  hope  that  this  will  be  pointed  out. 
...  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  have  been  true  to  a  great  and  cardinal 
doctrine  of  our  hoi}'  religion,  and  have  developed  its  necessary  implica- 
tions and  consequences,  we  ask  that  any  further  discussion  of  these 
conclusions  should  recognize  their  connection  with  the  principle  from  which 
they  are  derived,  and  their  legitimacy,  unless  this  principle  is  itself  to  be 
abandoned.^ 

Pantheism. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  "  the  principle"  referred  to  in  this 
extract  is  represented  as  "a  central  and  vital  principle  of  Chris- 
tianity," as  "  involved  in  the  church  doctrine  of  the  constitution 
of  Christ's  person,"  and  finally  as  "  a  great  and  cardinal  doctrine 
of  our  holy  religion."  Our  view  of  these  representations  is  that 
they  are  sheer  dogmatism  and  absolutely  false.  "  The  principle" 
thus  dogmatically  affirmed  and  glorified  is,  as  will  be  shown, 
sini pi v  the  old  speculation  or  theory  that  the  human  race  as  a 

1  Prog.  Ortli.  Iutroduction,  pp.  3,  4. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


147 


whole,  and  every  member  of  it,  are  organically  and  vitally  united 
to  Christ,  and  that  this  is  only  a  part  of  the  larger  theory  of  the 
organic  and  vital  union  and  identity  of  the  entire  world  with  God. 
This  larger  theory,  beyond  question,  is  not  of  Christian  but  of 
heathen  origin.  It  is  ancient  Pantheism.  Indeed,  it  is  not  only 
an  amazing  assumption,  but  also  a  severe  reflection  upon  Chris- 
tianity, to  represent  that  this  old  pagan  Pantheism  in  itself,  or 
in  any  application  of  it,  is  "  a  great  and  cardinal  doctrine  of  our 
holy  religion  "  ;  that  "  it  is  involved  in  the  church  doctrine  of  the 
constitution  of  Christ's  person  "  ;  and  that  it  is  "a  central  and 
vital  principle  of  Christianity."  The  truth  is  that  Pantheism 
had  its  origin,  not  in  Christianity  nor  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but 
in  the  ancient  philosophies  of  pagan  Greece  and  India ;  and 
nothing  could  be  more  opposed  to  the  Andover  Confession  of 
Faith  than  this  old  pagan  speculation  respecting  the  identity  of 
God  and  the  world,  or  any  use  of  it  in  the  way  of  explaining  the 
relation  of  Christ  to  the  human  race.  It  is  preposterous  for  the 
Andover  progressives  to  speak  deprecatingly,  as  they  do,  about 
"abandoning  this  principle,"  for  it  was  never  adopted  by  the 
Christian  Church  at  large  ;  and  as  to  Andover  Seminary,  that  was 
founded  for  the  very  purpose  of  opposing,  among  other  false  and 
hurtful  errors  prevailing  at  that  time,  this  same  "principle"  of 
pagan  Pantheism,  as  then  set  forth  in  its  application  to  Christianity 
by  John  Murray,  "  the  father  of  Universalism  in  America." 

This  theory  of  God's  relation  to  the  world,  which  is  confessedly 
the  fundamental  and  guiding  principle  in  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy," is  further  set  forth  in  the  following  language  :  — 

We  add  a  single  remark  upon  the  general  philosophical  conception  of 
God  and  his  relation  to  the  universe  which  underlies  these  essays.  It  is 
a  modification  of  a  prevailing  Latin  conception  of  the  divine  transcend- 
ence by  a  clearer  and  fuller  appreciation  (in  accordance  with  the  highest 
thought  of  the  Greek  fathers)  of  the  divine  immanence.  Such  a  doctrine 
of  God,  we  believe,  is  more  and  more  approving  itself  in  the  best  phi- 
losophy of  our  time,  and  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation  commends  it  to  the 
acceptance  of  the  Christian  theologian.1 

The  Greek  and  Latin  Conceptions  of  God. 
Attention  is  called  to  the  frank  confession  made  in  this  extract, 
that  it  is  the  Latin,  and  not  the  Greek,  conception  of  God  that  is 

•Prog.  Orth.  Introduction,  p.  16. 


148 


Tliird  Particular  Complaint. 


modified  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy."  The  old  Greek  conception 
of  God  remains  intact  in  the  so-called  "new  theology."  Speaking 
briefly  and  generally  we  may  say  that  the  Latin  conception  repre- 
sents God  as  other  than  the  universe  He  has  created,  and  while 
it  emphasizes  his  personality,  transcendence,  and  sovereignty,  it 
also  represents  Him  as  filling  the  created  universe  with  his  preserv- 
ing, controlling,  and  gracious  presence.  It  emphasizes  the  divine 
omnipresence  in  the  world,  no  less  than  the  divine  transcendence. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Greek  conception  of  God  fails  to  distin- 
guish sharply  between  God  and  the  created  universe  or  the  world. 
It  emphasizes  the  divine  immanence,  not  as  identical  with  the 
divine  omnipresence,  but  as  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  God 
with  the  world.  The  Latin  conception  of  God  is  scriptural.  It 
is  Christian  theism.  The  Greek  conception  is  unscriptural,  and 
either  is,  or  tends  to,  pure  Pantheism.  The  former  has  its  origin 
in  divine  Revelation  ;  the  latter  has  its  origin  in  Paganism.  The 
Latin  conception  is  the  prevailing  one  in  orthodox,  evangelistic 
chinches,  and  wherever  accepted  it  is  a  revealed  truth  of  marvel- 
ous vitality  and  power,  energizing  men  for  the  service  of  right- 
eousness and  of  God,  and  especially  for  irrepressible  missionary 
and  evangelistic  endeavors.  The  Greek  conception  is  found  in 
the  liberal,  so  called,  or  unevangelical,  churches.  The  religious 
faith  that  springs  from  this  conception  is  sometimes  indifferent, 
but  oftener  intensely  hostile  to  all  evangelistic  labors.  In  com- 
petition with  the  energizing,  evangelical  conception  of  God,  it 
will  occasionally  put  forth  a  few  languid  efforts  in  the  line  of 
education  and  philanthropy,  always,  however,  vigorously  exclud- 
ing all  evangelistic  labor  and  influence ;  but  left  to  itself  it 
quickly  ceases  to  do  anything  for  God  or  man,  and  soon  dies 
from  mere  inanition.  This  liberal  faith  can  seldom  be  moved  by 
any  impulsion  to  take  the  lead  in  founding  permanent  Christian 
institutions  for  the  good  of  men  ;  it  is  more  likely  to  adopt  the 
principles  of  the  highwayman,  and,  by  methods  amounting  to 
fraud  and  robbery,  seize  such  educational,  ecclesiastical,  and  other 
institutions  as  it  needs  for  its  own  support  and  propagation. 

The  Pantheistic  Idea  Regnant  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

No*v  it  is  this  Greek,  pantheistic  conception  of  God  that  the 
defendant  and  his  progressive  associates  are  enamored  with. 


TJiird  Particular  Complaint. 


14  9 


Such  is  the  regnant  and  all-pervading  principle  in  their  "  new 
theology."  The  progressive  professors  at  Andover,  speaking  of 
this  principle,  frankly  say  :  — 

We  have  endeavored  to  follow  its  guidance  faithfully  and  loyally, 
and  whithersoever  it  might  lead.  We  have  trusted  it  wholly  and 
practically.1 

But  this  Greek,  pantheistic  notion  of  the  vital  union  and  real 
identity  of  God  and  the  world,  if  introduced  into  the  evangelical, 
Christian  system  of  faith,  will  poison  and  corrupt  every  scriptu- 
ral doctrine  which  it  touches.  And  surely  no  notion  coming  from 
pagan  philosophy,  or  from  any  source,  can  be  more  antagonistic 
than  Pantheism  to  the  theology  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  to  all 
evangelical  faith.  Even  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God,  according  to 
this  pantheistic  philosophy,  becomes,  as  has  already  been  shown, 
simply  the  archetype  of  all  human  beings,  and  thus  every  man 
comes  to  be  regarded  as  truly  a  God-man  as  is  Christ  himself. 

Another  statement  of  this  pantheistic  theory  of  Christ's  rela- 
tion to  the  world,  and  to  the  human  race  as  a  part  of  the  world, 
which  is  now  held  and  taught  in  Andover  Seminary  is  found  in 
these  words  :  — 

What  is  commonly,  though  in  too  limited  a  way,  called  his  [Christ's] 
mediatorial  kingdom  will  come  to  an  end  when  the  creation,  in  the  Per- 
son of  its  redemptive  Head  and  Lord,  will  bow  before  the  throne,  and 
God  will  be  all  in  all.  That  cycle  of  history  introduced  by  Adam's 
transgression,  or  earlier  in  the  sin  of  angelic  spirits,  will  come  to  a 
close,  and  with  it  that  form  of  dominion  determined  by  the  existence  of 
unvanquished  rebellion.2 

According  to  this  statement,  "  the  creation,"  or  the  entire  uni- 
verse which  is  commonly  spoken  of  as  having  been  created,  is 
not  to  be  conceived  of  as  other  than  "  the  Person  of  its  redemp- 
tive Head  and  Lord,"  but  as  united  to  and  included  in  his  Person, 
and  as  constituting  an  essential  part  of  his  being,  so  that  when 
He  bows  before  the  throne  the  entire  universe  bows  in  Him,  "  and 
God  will  be  all  in  all."  The  conception  appears  to  be  that  of 
emanation.  As  under  necessary  law  a  ray  emanates  from  the  sun, 
imparts  its  light  and  heat,  and  then  is  reabsorbed  into  its  source, 
so  the  universe  of  dependent  worlds,  beings,  and  things  is  only 

1  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  3,  4.      2  Ibid.  p.  24. 


150 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


a  necessary  emanation  or  evolution  from  the  being  of  God, 
and,  having  accomplished  under  necessary  law  its  historic  cycle 
of  divine  manifestations  and  changes,  will  be  reabsorbed  into 
Deity.  This  is  Pantheism ;  and  no  theory  of  God's  relation  to 
the  universe  can  more  violently  antagonize,  than  does  this,  the 
scriptural  conception  of  that  relation  as  set  forth  in  the  Andover 
Creed  where  it  affirms,  that  "  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and 
unchangeable  in  his  being,"  and  "  that  God  created  man." 

Universalism. 

According  to  the  pantheistic  theory  now  taught  at  Andover, 
God  in  Christ  is  changeable.  Changes  in  the  universe  and  in  the 
human  race  are  simply  so  many  changes  in  Christ.  When  Christ 
bows  before  the  throne  the  universe  in  Him  bows  also.  When 
Christ  feels  pain  in  view  of  human  sin,  every  man,  as  vitally 
united  to  Christ  and  so  a  constituent  part  of  his  being,  really, 
though  not  consciously,  feels  that  same  pain.  When  Christ  sor- 
rows for  the  sins  of  the  human  race,  confesses  them,  and  so  re- 
pents of  them,  every  member  of  the  human  race,  though  he  may 
have  no  knowledge  or  consciousness  of  it,  repents  in  that  perfect 
repentance  of  Christ  because  he  is  "so  identified"  with  Him. 
This  is  not  simply  Pantheism,  but  also  Universalism  ;  for  if  every 
man  offers  to  God  a  perfect  repentance  in  Christ,  every  man  not 
merely  will  be  but  is  saved. 

Christ  the  Life  of  Every  Man  and  of  the  Universe. 

Again,  the  pantheistic  nature  of  Christ's  relation  to  the  world, 
including  the  human  race,  as  that  relation  is  depicted  by  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy,"  is  made  evident  by  such  language  as  the 
following  :  — 

The  whole  truth,  then,  is  that  Christ  is  the  revealing  or  manifesting 
principle;  or,  more  exactly,  that  through  the  Logos,  the  Word,  the  Sec- 
ond Person  of  the  Trinity,  that  which  is  absolute  fulness  and  truth 
in  God  is  communicated  into  finite  existences;  .  .  .  The  created  universe 
and  all  rational  beings  are  through  Christ  and  in  Christ.  Therefore  He 
mediates  or  reveals  God  to  any  part  of  His  universe  according  to  the 
condition  or  need  which  may  exist  in  that  part.  .  .  .  Christ  cannot  be 
indifferent  to  the  least  of  His  creatures  in  its  pain  and  wickedness,  for 
His  universe  is  not  attached  to  Him  externally,  but  vitally.  He  is  not  a 
governor  set  over  it,  bat  is  its  life  everywhere.    He  feels  its  every  move- 


Tliird  Particular  Complaint. 


151 


ment,  most  of  all  its  spiritual  life  and  feebleness  or  disease,  and  appears 
in  His  glorious  power  even  at  the  remotest  point.1    [Italics  ours.] 

But  if  the  universe  is  attached  to  Christ,  not  externally,  but 
vitally,  and  if  He  is  "  not  a  governor  set  over  it,  but  is  its  life 
everywhere  and  feels  its  every  movement,"  especially  its  spiritual 
life,  feebleness,  or  disease,  then  Christ  and  the  universe  are  one 
person  and  Christ  is  responsible  for  the  life  of  that  person,  for 
his  character,  for  his  every  movement,  even  for  his  guilt,  if  he 
sins.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  Supreme  Governor  of  the  uni- 
verse, as  the  Lord  of  lords  and  the  King  of  kings,  He  is  not  re- 
sponsible for  all  the  movements,  sins,  and  sufferings  of  free  and 
accountable  beings  in  the  universe.  But  if  he  is  not  Lord  of  all, 
if  he  and  the  universe  are  one  person,  and  he  allows  pain,  sick- 
ness, or  wickedness  in  any  part  of  his  own  being,  it  must  be 
because  he  is  either  not  almighty  or  not  all-good,  and  in  either 
case  he  is  not  God.  Moreover,  if  Christ's  sympathy  for  men  in 
their  woes  and  wickedness  is  not  the  sympathy  of  one  being  for 
other  beings,  but  of  one  being  for  himself,  why  are  not  all  the 
woes  and  wickedness  of  men  Christ's  own  woes  and  wicked- 
ness? And  if  Christ  and  the  entire  human  race,  by  their  organic 
and  vital  union,  constitute  one  person,  so  that  He  can  repent  of 
all  then-  sins,  while  they  of  themselves  cannot  repent  of  them, 
why  ought  He  not  to  repent  of  them,  and  why  is  He  not  guilty  to 
an  inconceivable  degree  of  the  sin  of  impenitence  if  He  does  not 
repent  of  them?  But  if  He  offers  a  repentance  which  He  ought  to 
offer,  which  is  due  to  himself  and  to  all  men  as  included  in  him- 
self, to  whom  He  is  attached  not  "  externally  but  vitally,"  even 
as  the  head  is  attached  to  the  members  of  its  own  body,  then  the 
salvation  of  all  men  through  the  repentance  of  Christ  their  Head 
is  simply  an  act  of  justice,  and  not  at  all  of  grace  on  Christ's 
part.  But  the  Creed,  which  every  Andover  professor  accepts  and 
promises  to  maintain,  declares  that  "our  salvation  is  wholly  of 
grace." 

This  strange  doctrine  of  repentance  is  founded  upon  the  specu- 
lative and  pantheistic  notion  that  Christ,  in  his  relation  to  the 
universe,  "is  its  life  everywhere."  Of  course,  then,  He  is  the 
life  of  every  man,  and  the  human  race  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as 
existing  apart  from,  or  as  other  than,  the  immanent  Christ,  but  as 

»Prog.  Orth.  pp.  43,  44. 


152 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


constituting  with  Him,  who  is  its  life,  one  being,  feeling  what  He 
feels,  doing  what  He  does.  Then  follows  naturally  the  teaching 
that  men  cannot  repent  apart  from  Christ,  or  of  themselves,  but 
can  repent  in  Christ,  who  is  their  life,  and  who  always  feels  pain 
and  sorrow  in  view  of  sin.  But  as  He  is  the  life  of  all  men  He 
feels  pain  and  sorrow  in  all  men  in  view  of  their  sins,  and  thus 
all  men,  through  their  vital  union  with  Christ,  offer  to  God  a 
perfect  and  acceptable  repentance.  Thus  we  find  again  that 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  thoroughgoing  Universalism.  And 
Universalism  is  one  of  the  errors  specified  in  the  Creed  which 
every  Andover  professor  has  religiously  promised  to  oppose. 

The  Vital  Union  of  the  Race  with  Christ  Unproved. 

Now  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  offers  no  evidence  whatever  in 
support  of  this  theory  of  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  all  men 
with  Christ.  It  everywhere  assumes,  and  often  dogmatically 
affirms,  the  reality  of  such  a  union,  apparently  seeking  by  this  fre- 
quent assertion  and  implication  of  such  a  reality  to  make  the 
minds  of  its  readers  familiar  with  the  notion.  At  length  it  says, 
with  a  sigh  of  relief,  as  if  believing  that  at  last  the  reader's 
familiarity  with  the  doctrine  must  have  convinced  him  of  its  truth : 

So  we  have  become  accustomed  to  the  thought  that  Christ  has  an 
organic  relation  to  the  race.  He  is  an  individual,  but  an  individual 
vitally  related  to  every  human  being.  He  preferred  to  be  called  the 
Son  of  man.  Paul  sees  in  Him  the  Head  of  humanity,  the  second  Adam. 
...  He  was  not  merely  the  ideal  man,  but  the  universal  man.  .  .  . 

Humanity  may  thus  be  thought  of  as  offering  something  to  God  of 
eminent  value.  When  Christ  suffers  the  race  suffers.  When  Christ  is 
sorrowful  the  race  is  sorrowful.  Christ  realizes  what  humanity  could 
not  realize  for  itself.  The  race  may  be  conceived  as  approaching  God 
and  signifying  its  penitence  by  pointing  to  Christ,  and  by  giving  ex- 
pression in  Him  to  repentance  which  no  words  could  utter.  Thus  we 
can  regard  Him  as  our  substitute,  not  because  He  stands  apart,  not 
because  He  is  one  and  the  race  another,  but  because  He  is  so  intimately 
identified  with  us.  and  because  in  essential  respects  the  life  of  every  one 
is,  or  may  be,  locked  in  with  his.  The  representative  power  which 
belongs  to  man  in  his  various  relations  comes  to  its  perfect  realizntion 
in  Christ.  In  the  family,  in  government,  in  business,  in  society,  repre- 
sentative or  substitutionary  relations  are  the  rule,  not  the  exception. 
Much  more  has  Christ  the  power  perfect^'  to  represent  us  or  to  be  sub- 
stituted for  us,  because  there  is  no  point  of  our  real  life  where  He  is  not 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


153 


in  contact  with  us.  Here  is  the  truth  of  McLeod  Campbell's  view  of 
atonement.  The  entire  race  repents,  or  is  capable  of  repenting,  through 
Christ.  It  renders  in  Him  a  complete  repentance.  He  is  the  Amen  of 
humanity  to^he  righteousness  of  God's  love,  to  the  ill  desert  of  sin,  to 
the  justice  of  God*s  judgments.1 

The  Nature  of  Man's  Union  with  Christ. 
In  these  statements  the  pantheistic  philosophy  or  theory  of 
"  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  respecting  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the 
human  race  is  set  forth  with  some  inconsistencies,  yet  with  consid- 
erable explicitness.  Several  of  the  representations  made  in  these 
quotations  should  receive  special  attention. 

The  Union  Vital. 
First,  there  is  here  a  positive  declaration  that  while  Christ  is 
"  an  individual  "  He  is  yet  "  an  individual  vitally  related  to  every 
human  being."  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  '•'■vitally" 
as  here  used  ?  Its  import  is  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  statement 
already  noticed,  that  Christ  "  is  not  a  governor  set  over  "his 
universe,  "  but  is  its  life  everywhere."  Of  course,  then,  He  is  the 
life  of  every  man.  God  in  Christ  is  conceived  of  in  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy  "  as  a  vast  individual  Existence  coining  into  mani- 
fested life  in  all  living  beings  and  things  :  in  the  trees  and  grass, 
in  the  ox  and  the  worm,  in  all  angels,  in  all  insects,  and  in  all 
men.  Christ  is  not  simply  omnipresent.  "  His  universe  is  not 
attached  to  him  externally,  but  vitally."  He  "  is  its  life  every- 
where." "He  was  not  merely  the  ideal  man,  but  the  universal 
man."  His  life  and  the  life  of  every  man  are  identical.  The  Life 
in  the  universe  is  one,  is  a  unit,  is  Christ.  Therefore  his  person 
includes  in  itself  all  men.  Elsewhere  He  is  declared  to  be  "the 
universal  Person"  (p.  63).  Can  such  pantheistic  Universalism  be 
lawfully  and  righteously  taught  on  the  Andover  Foundations  ? 

The  Race  the  Body  of  Christ. 
Secondly,  according  to  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  Christ  is  not 
simply  the  Head  of  his  Church  considered  as  including  all  chosen 
out  of  the  world,  but  is  "the  Head  of  humanity.  He  is  the 
second  Adam."  The  entire  human  race,  then,  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  one  true  Church  of  God.    Every  human  being  is  a 

i  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  53-54. 


154 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


member  of  Christ's  body.  All  men  alike,  the  wicked  and  the 
righteous,  Judas  and  John,  Pilate  and  Peter,  heathen  and  Chris- 
tians, the  worst  criminals  and  the  holiest  saints  who  have  ever 
lived  or  ever  will  live  on  earth,  constitute  the  one  body  of  Christ, 
the  true  Christian  Church.  Was  Andover  Seminary  founded  to 
teach  such  a  theology  as  this? 

What  Christ  Does  the  Race  Does. 

Thirdly,  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  consistently  maintains  that 
what  the  Head  does  the  whole  body  does.  "  When  Christ  suffers 
the  race  suffers.  When  Christ  sorrows  the  race  sorrows."  Of 
course,  then,  when  Christ  repents  the  race  repents.  Christ  feels 
the  pain  of  regret  and  grief  in  view  of  human  sins.  If  that  pain 
oan  be  called  repentance,  then  Christ  repents.  And  as  all  men 
constitute  the  body  of  Christ,  making  with  Him  one  person,  they 
all  repent  in  his  repentance,  and  "the  race"  may  signify  "its 
penitence  by  pointing  to  Christ  and  by  giving  expression  in  Him 
to  repentance  which  no  words  could  utter."  Man's  repentance, 
so  called,  is  imperfect,  absolutely  ineffective  and  worthless.  But 
Christ's  repentance  is  perfect,  and  as  in  his  repentance  all  men 
repent,  they  all  offer  a  repentance  that  is  perfect,  revolutionary, 
recuperative,  regenerative,  redemptive,  and  saving.  Can  such  a 
doctrine  as  this  be  held  and  taught  in  Andover  Seminary  by  an 
honest  man  who  has  solemnly  promised  to  oppose  Universalism  ? 

The  Race  Not  Other  than  Christ. 

Fourthly,  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  holds  that  Christ  is  our 
substitute,  not  in  the  sense  of  standing  in  our  place  and  doing 
and  suffering  in  our  stead,  but  in  the  sense  of  being  "  inti- 
mately identified  with  us."  He  is  a  substitute  for,  and  a  repre- 
sentative of,  the  race,  "  not  because  He  is  one  and  the  race  an- 
other," but  because  the  life  of  the  race  and  of  every  member  of 
it  is  his  life,  so  that  what  He  does  the  race  does,  and  what  He 
suffers  the  race  suffers.  On  this  theory  no  action  or  suffering  of 
Christ  in  the  place  of  the  sinner  as  being  other  than  himself  is 
possible.  The  new-departure  teaching  is  that  man  of  himself 
does  not  and  can  not  repent ;  but  when  Christ  repents  He  repre- 
sents the  race,  not  as  being  other  than  himself,  in  whose  stead  He 
can  act,  but  as  being  a  constituent  part  of  his  own  person,  as 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


155 


being  the  body  of  which  He  is  the  Head,  and  as  containing  his 
very  life.  But  is  such  a  repentance  one  of  the  '■'■personal  requi- 
sites "  to,  or  conditions  of,  salvation,  which  must  be  fulfilled  per- 
sonally by  the  sinner,  and  not  by  another,  according  to  the  An- 
dover  Creed?  To  ask  this  question  is  to  answer  it.  Every 
professor  in  this  Seminary  who  teaches  that  the  race  repents  in 
Christ,  and  may  signify  its  penitence  by  pointing  to  Christ's  re- 
pentance as  its  own  perfect  repentance,  is  teaching  a  doctrine 
which  he  has  promised  as  under  oath  not  to  teach  but  to  oppose. 

The  Vital  Question. 

We  are  prepared  now  to  answer  the  vital  question  already 
raised:  What  does  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  mean  by  the 
phrases,  "  in  Christ,"  "  in  union  with  Christ,"  "  Christ  in  us," 
"the  indwelling  Christ,"  "the  divine  immanence"?  The  pro- 
gressive professors  tell  us  that  "  man  of  himself  cannot  repent," 
but  "  in  Christ,"  "  in  union  with  Christ,"  because  "  Christ  is  in 
with  the  race,"  "immanent"  in  every  human  being,  man  can 
repent ;  and  his  repentance  in  this  case  is  not  imperfect,  ineffect- 
ive, unreal,  and  worthless,  but  complete,  radical,  revolutionary, 
and  recuperative  to  the  utmost  degree.  But  if  this  be  true, 
nothing  can  exceed  the  urgency  of  the  question,  What  is  this 
union  of  man  —  of  every  man,  of  the  entire  human  race  —  with 
Christ? 

1.  This  union  is  not  oneness  with  Christ  in  character  and  con- 
duct. Some  members  of  the  human  race  are  Christlike,  but  all 
of  them  are  not.  Even  the  Andover  progressives  cannot  claim  that 
all  men  bear  the  image  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  manifest  his  mind 
and  spirit ;  but  they  do  claim  that  all  men  are  "  in  Christ,"  and 
that  Christ  is  in  every  man.  The  union  to  which  they  refer, 
therefore,  cannot  possibly  be  a  oneness  of  all  human  beings  with 
Christ  in  purity  and  righteousness,  in  spirit  and  conduct. 

2.  This  alleged  union  of  all  mankind  with  Christ  is  not  a  con- 
nection with  Him  attained  through  the  new  birth.  Indeed  it  is 
not  attained  at  all.  The  theory  is  that  it  is  coexistent  with  the 
being  of  man.  The  moment  man  begins  to  be,  he  is  "in  Christ" 
and  Christ  is  in  him.  Moreover,  the  new  birth  of  which  the  gos- 
pel speaks,  and  without  which  no  man  can  enter  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  while  it  does  bring  those  who  experience  it  into  the  closest 


156 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


and  dearest  relation  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  is  not  experienced  by  all 
men,  and  therefore  cannot  be  that  union  of  the  entire  human 
race  with  Christ  —  or  even  the  occasion  of  that  union  —  which 
is  set  forth  by  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  as  "the  central  and 
vital  principle  of  Christianity."  The  apostle  Paul  says:  "There- 
fore if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature."  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy"  represents  that  all  men  are  "in  Christ,"  but  as 
it  does  not  and  can  not  add  that  every  man  is  a  "  new  creature," 
it  evidently  does  not  use  the  phrases  "  in  Christ"  and  "  Christ  in 
us  "  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Paul  used  them.  It  must,  then, 
use  them  in  an  unscriptural  sense,  whatever  that  sense  may  be. 

3.  Nor  does  this  union  of  all  men  with  Christ  result  from  their 
repenting  of  sin  and  believing  on  Christ,  for  this  simple  reason, 
among  others,  that  it  precedes  repentance  and  faith.  According 
to  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  man  must  be  "  in  Christ"  in  order 
that  he  may  be  able  to  repent.  Of  himself  he  cannot  repent, 
but  "in  Christ"  he  can  and  does  repent.  This  union  of  the 
race  with  Christ,  whatever  it  is,  does  not  result  from  repentance 
and  faith,  but  repentance  and  faith  result  from  this  union. 
According  to  the  Scriptures  there  ts  a  blessed  union  of  .Christ 
with  his  disciples  in  which  He  dwells  in  them  through  their  abiding 
love  to  Him,  sympathy  with  Him,  and  faith  in  Him.  But  in  this 
case,  the  love,  sympathy,  and  faith  precede  the  indwelling  of 
Christ  in  his  disciples  and  are  the  occasion  of  it :  whereas  the 
indwelling  of  Christ  in  all  men,  of  which  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy" speaks,  precedes  personal  love,  sympathy,  and  faith,  and 
does  not  ensure  them.  Paul's  prayer  for  the  saints  at  Ephesus  was, 
"  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  by  faith."  In  this  case 
Christian  faith  is  represented  as  preceding  the  divine  indwelling 
and  as  the  condition  of  it.  But  the  indwelling  of  Christ  in  all 
men,  which  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  sets  forth  as  a  cardinal 
Christian  doctrine,  is  represented  as  preceding  personal  faith 
in  Christ,  without  in  all  cases,  if  in  any  case,  making  that  faith 
actual.  Such  teaching  is  uot  simply  unscriptural,  but  anti-scrip- 
tural ;  and,  if  anti-scriptural,  it  is  also  absolutely  antagonistic  to 
the  Seminary  Creed. 

4.  These  phrases,  "  Christ  in  us,"  "Christ  in  with  the  race," 
"  Christ  immanent  in  all  men,"  do  not  signify  simply  the  omni- 
presence of  Christ  in  the  human  family.    The  common  belief 


TJiird  Particular  Complaint. 


157 


of  our  churches  has  been  that  He  who  became  flesh  was  the 
Creator;  that  "  without  Him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was 
made  "  ;  and  that  He  is  everywhere  present  in  his  creation  'and 
beyond  it,  yet  is  himself  other  than  the  things  and  beings  He 
has  made.  Some  theologians  have  designated  this  universal 
divine  presence  in  creation  as  the  divine  immanence.  But  evi- 
dently "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  does  not  regard  the  divine  im- 
manence as  identical  with  the  divine  omnipresence.  It  never 
uses  the  one  phrase  as  equivalent  to  the  other. 

Positive  Answer  to  the  Vital  Question. 

5.  Our  main  question,  therefore,  is  still  pressing  for  an  answer  : 
What  is  this  immanence  of  Christ  in  the  human  race,  this  union 
of  all  men  with  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  is  represented  to  us  as  a 
transcendent  verity  in  Christianity,  and  as  a  fundamental  doctrine 
in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "? 

This  union  is  defined  only  by  the  frequent  use  of  two  words. 
It  is  said  to  be  "  organic"  and  " vital."  It  is  the  organic  and 
vital  union  of  all  human  beings  with  the  Lord  Jesus.  The  Son 
of  God  is  represented  as  having  "an  organic  relation  to  the  race," 
like  that  of  Adam  to  his  posterity,  and  like  that  between  the 
head  and  members  of  the  human  body.  It  is  such  a  solidarity  of 
the  human  race  in  Christ  that  He  and  the  race  constitute,  in  some 
sense,  one  being,  one  person  ;  so  that  what  Christ  does  all  men 
do  :  what  Christ  suffers  all  men  suffer. 

This  union  of  every  man  with  Christ  is  also  declared  to  be 
vital  as  well  as  organic.  What  is  meant  by  this,  we  repeat,  is 
disclosed  in  the  statement  that  Christ's 

universe  is  not  attached  to  Him  externally  but  vitally.  He  is  not  a 
governor  set  over  it,  but  is  its  life  everywhere.1 

Of  course,  then,  He  is  the  life  of  every  man.  The  Son  of  God  is 
so  identified  with  all  men  that  his  life  and  their  life  are  one  and 
the  same  life.  This  is  essentially  Pantheism.  Thus  this  vaunted 
union  of  Christ  and  the  human  race  turns  out  to  be  a  pantheistic 
union,  the  identity  of  Christ  and  the  human  race,  the  solidarity 
of  all  men  in  Christ,  constituting  Hun  and  them  one  being,  so 
that  what  the  Head  does  the  members  do. 

'Prog.  Orth.  p. 44. 


158 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


When  Christ  suffers  the  race  suffers.  When  Christ  is  sorrowful  the 
race  is  sorrowful.  .  .  .  The  race  may  be  conceived  as  approaching  God, 
and  signifying  its  penitence  by  pointing  to  Christ,  and  by  giving  expres- 
sion in  Hiin  to  repentance  which  no  words  could  utter.1 

Thus  when  Christ  repents  the  race  repents. 

According  to  this  pantheistic  conception,  all  men,  irrespective 
of  their  moral  character,  are  one  with  Christ.  It  is  a  oneness  in 
being,  not  in  holiness.  Most  Christian  people,  if  we  are  not  mis- 
taken, will  be  shocked  at  the  idea  that  all  members  of  the  human 
race  alike,  the  dead  and  the  living,  all  the  heathen  and  all  Chris- 
tians, the  wicked  and  the  righteous,  the  regenerate  and  the  unre- 
generate,  the  penitent  and  the  impenitent,  are  in  Christ,  vitally 
united  to  Him  and  included  in  his  person.  The  conception  seems 
blasphemous.  It  represents  our  adorable  Lord  as  a  horrible  mon- 
strosity. It  is  essentially  a  heathen  notion,  and  the  entertainment 
of  it  by  a  professor  in  a  Christian  Seminary  dishonors  his  scholar- 
ship, if  it  does  not  impugn  both  his  piety  and  his  common  sense. 
Yet  such  is  the  theory  of  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person  and 
of  his  relation  to  the  human  race,  now  accepted  and  taught  by 
professors  in  Andover  Seminary. 

Inconsistencies  of  the  Andover  Progressives. 

True,  they  are  not  always  consistent  with  themselves.  Their 
writings  abound  in  self-contradictions.  For  instance,  they  affirm 
that  "  man  of  himself  cannot  repent,"  yet  talk  of  man's  being 
"  stirred  to  penitence,"  "  moved  to  repentance,"  and  declare  that 
"  under  appropriate  influences,  he  is  capable  of  repenting,"  that  is, 
can  repent  if  he  will.  Thus  they  affirm  and  deny  the  same  thing. 
Yet  in  spite  of  all  their  inconsistencies  and  absolute  self-contra- 
dictions, the  dominating  theory  of  the  progressive  professors  is 
that  man  cannot  repent  except  through  his  organic  and  vital,  that 
is,  his  pantheistic,  union  with  Christ.  Indeed,  they  themselves 
affirm  that  "Christ's  personal  relation  to  the  human  race  as  a 
whole  and  to  every  member  of  it "  is  "  a  central  and  vital  prin- 
ciple of  Christianity,"  and  that  they  have  committed  themselves 
wholly  to  the  guidance  of  that  principle.  Their  inconsistencies 
are  a  contradiction  of  their  fundamental  principle. 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  53. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


159 


Rellyanism. 

In  the  next  place,  we  propose  to  show  that  this  central  prin- 
ciple of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  namely,  the  organic  and  vital 
union  of  the  entire  human  race  with  Christ,  is  identically  the  cen- 
tral principle  of  that  form  of  Universalism  which  the  Founders 
of  Andover  Seminary  had  chiefly  in  mind  when  they  put  into 
their  Statutes  the  requirement  that  every  professor  in  then-  Sem- 
inary, to  the  end  of  time,  should  solemnly  promise  to  oppose 
Universalism.  In  1807,  when  Andover  Seminary  was  founded, 
the  only  form  of  Universalism  which  had  attracted  much  popular 
attention  in  New  England  was  termed  Rellyanism,  it  having  been 
preached  by  one  James  Relly  in  London,  England.  It  was  first 
preached  in  this  country  by  John  Murray,  who  is  called  "  the 
Father  of  Universalism  in  America."  He  was  a  loyal  disciple  of 
James  Relly. 

James  Relly. 

This  progressive  divine  began  to  preach  his  new  gospel  in 
London  near  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  He  was  an  un- 
learned man,  yet  he  appears  to  have  fascinated  a  certain  class  of 
people  for  a  brief  time  by  his  rough  and  ready  eloquence.  The 
crowds  rushed  to  hear  him.  He  was  the  sensation  of  the  day  in 
London.  He  claimed  to  be  the  only  man  of  advanced  thought  in 
his  time,  the  only  progressive  theologian  in  that  age  of  the  world, 
aDd  the  first  man  who  had  preached  the  true  gospel  since  the 
days  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  The  Wesleys  and  other  evan- 
gelical preachers  in  England  at  that  time  opposed  him  strenuously, 
believing  that  the  doctrines  he  proclaimed  were  hazardous  to  the 
souls  of  men. 

John  Murray. 

Relly's  most  famous  disciple,  John  Murray,  came  to  this  coun- 
try in  1770.  Both  of  these  men  at  one  time  claimed  to  have  been 
converted  under  the  preaching  of  George  Whitefield,  but  both 
abandoned  the  faith  of  that  great  preacher.  Upon  reaching  this 
country,  Murray  began  at  once  to  preach  the  new  gospel  which  he 
had  learned  from  James  Relly.  Like  his  teacher  he  had  received 
no  training  in  the  schools,  but  was  of  ready  speech,  and  his  style 
of  preaching  is  said  to  have  strikingly  resembled  that  of  his 


160 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


master.  He  preached  first  in  New  Jersey.  He  was  an  impecu- 
nious man,  and  for  several  years  obtained  his  support  from  evan- 
gelical Christians,  concealing  the  fact  that  he  was  a  Universalist. 
He  adroitly  worked  his  way  into  pulpits  in  all,  or  nearly  all,  the 
evangelical  denominations,  doing  this  sometimes  during  the  tem- 
porary absence  or  the  sickness  of  the  pastors.  His  habit  was  to 
make  missionary  tours  through  the  country,  and  to  preach  wher- 
ever and  whenever  he  could  obtain  admission  to  a  house  of 
worship.  In  this  way  he  preached  from  Maryland  to  Maine, 
producing  division  and  discord  in  evangelical  churches  wherever 
he  went.  He  became  a  notorious  character.  Dr.  Ezra  Stiles,  at 
a  later  day  President  of  Yale  College,  wrote  a  letter  which  was 
afterwards  published,  and  in  which  he  denounced  Murray  and 
warned  Christian  people  against  him.  Murray  was  well  known  to 
the  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary.  He  married  his  wife  in 
Salem,  where  John  Norris,  one  of  the  Founders,  resided.  He 
preached  repeatedly  in  Newburyport,  where  Dr.  Samuel  Spring, 
who  wrote  the  Andover  Creed,  William  Bartlet,  and  Moses 
Brown,  two  other  Founders,  resided.  Murray,  after  rending 
asunder  the  Congregational  church  in  Gloucester,  Massachusetts, 
during  the  last  sickness  of  its  pastor,  organized  there  a  church  of 
his  own  faith  —  the  first  Universalist  church  in  this  country.  In 
1793  he  became  pastor  of  the  First  Universalist  Church  in  Boston, 
Massachusetts.  He  was  preaching  in  Boston  in  1807,  the  year 
Andover  Seminary  was  founded.  He  continued  to  preach  until 
1810,  and  died  in  1815. 

John  Murray  was  fond  of  theological  debate.  He  had  a  long 
discussion  with  the  famous  theologian  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  while 
they  were  riding  together  on  horseback.  There  is  a  record  that 
he  had  a  public  debate  with  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  the  younger, 
at  New  Haven,  Connecticut.  Murray  published  accounts  of 
many  of  his  private  theological  discussions,  but  it  is  significant 
that  he  never  gave  the  world  any  account  of  his  public  dis- 
cussion with  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  the  younger.  Edwards, 
however,  published  a  brief  refutation  of  Rellyanism,  in  which  he 
apologizes  for  troubling  his  readers  with  ' '  remarks  on  such  wild 
and  confused  mysticism  —  such  horrid  doctrine."  1  Dr.  Nathanael 
Emmons   also  preached   against  the  doctrines  of  Relly  and 

1  Works  of  President  Ed  wards,  vol.  i,  p.  269. 


Third  Particular  Comjjlaint. 


161 


Murray.1  Dr.  Emmons  was  a  brother-in-law  of  Dr.  Spring, 
and  was  repeatedly  consulted  by  Dr.  Spring  when  the  latter 
was  writing  the  Andover  Creed.  Certain  phrases  in  this  Creed 
beyond  question  are  aimed  against  Rellyanism,  and  were  designed 
to  make  it  impossible  that  that  particular  form  of  Universalism, 
or  any  other  form,  should  ever  be  taught  in  Andover  Seminary. 

"The  New  Theology"  of  the  Last  Century. 

What  now  is  Rellyanism  ?  Its  central  and  dominating  principle 
is  the  dogma  of  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  the  entire  human 
race  with  Christ.  Relly  dwelt  continually  upon  the  constitution 
of  the  Person  of  Christ,  and  upon  Christ's  relation  to  the  human 
race,  representing  that  Christ  is  the  life  of  every  man,  and  that 
thus  He  is  in  vital  union  with  all  men,  and  that  the  entire  race  is 
included  in  his  person.  His  principal  theological  treatise  is 
entitled  "  Union,"  as  it  treats  of  Christ's  union,  or  oneness,  with 
the  human  race.  The  full  title  of  this  work  is:  "  Union:  or, 
A  Treatise  of  the  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  between  Christ  and 
His  Church.    By  James  Relly.    1  Cor.  xii.  12.    London,  1759." 

'■'■The  Chtirch,"  in  Relly's  view,  is  the  human  race,  or  Adam 
and  his  posterity.  Sometimes  he  designates  mankind  as  "  the 
people,"  but  more  usually  as  "  the  Church.  At  first  Adam  was 
"  the  Church"  ;  yet  he  is  considered  as  including  all  men  in  his 
person. 

The  Union  of  the  Race  with  Christ. 

Relly's  notion  of  the  union  of  all  men  with  Christ  may  be  set 
foi'th  in  a  few  quotations  from  his  writings.  For  instance  he 
illustrates  this  union  by  that  of  Adam  and  Eve. 

As  Eve  Existed  in  Adam,  so  the  Race  Exists  in  Christ. 

Thus  [he  says]  were  the  Twain  created  in  one:  the  Woman  in  her 
Husband,  where  they  had  one  name  given  them ;  He  called  their  name 
Adam.  It  was  whilst  they  were  in  this  condition,  that  the  Lord  God 
breathed  into  their  nostrils  the  breath  of  Life ;  and  Man  became  a  living 
soul.  It  was  whilst  they  were  in  this  capacity,  undistinguished  in  person, 
that  the  Lord  God  commanded  Man.  .  .  .  Yea,  it  was  whilst  the  Person 
of  Adam  was  plural,  as  containing  the  Woman  in  Himself,  that  the  Lord 

i  Sermon  on  the  General  Judgment,  Emmons's  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  566.  Edition  of 
Crocker  &  Brewster,  Boston,  1842. 


162 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


God  said  unto  them,  'be  fruitful  and  multiply  and  replenish  the  earth  and 
subdue  it.''  .  .  .  The  twain  were  created  in  one ;  the  woman  in  her  Hus- 
band. Similar  with  this,  the  Church  [the  human  race]  existed  in  Christ ; 
according  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 
.  .  .  Eve  when  taken  from  Adam  into  a  distinct  consciousness  of  exist- 
ence, was  not  less  related  unto  him,  than  when  she  was  only  a  Eib  in  his 
Side;  as  appears  from  Adam's  testimony;  she  is  now  bone  of  my  bones, 
and  flesh  of  my  flesh.  In  like  manner,  the  Church  when  put  forth  in  the 
creation  of  Adam,  into  a  distinct  personality  from  her  Head  and  Husband 
Christ,  was  not  less  united  to  him,  than  when  she  only  existed  in  him; 
which  she  did,  before  the  earthly  Man  was  created,  or  ever  the  worlds 
were  made.1 

Christ  the  Second  Adam. 
Again,  speaking  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  of  the  race  in  him, 
Relly  says  :  — 

Hence  we  gather,  that  Adam  was  not  deceived  in  His  own  Person ;  but 
knowing  what  Eve  had  done,  and  seeing  their  ruin  inevitable,  He  volun- 
tarily put  himself  into  her  condition,  by  receiving  the  fruit  from  her 
hand,  and  eating  thereof ;  such  was  his  love  unto  his  wife.  And  as  they 
were  not,  (tho'  distinct  in  person),  without  each  the  other  in  the  Lord, 
her  transgression  extended  unto  him :  and  His  Union  unto  her  made  it 
equitable,  for  the  curse  and  condemnation  of  her  folly,  to  fall  upon 
him;  and  that  without  the  consideration  of  his  consent,  and  compliance 
with  Her. 

In  like  manner,  Christ  the  Husband  was  not  deceived:  but  his  Wife, 
the  Church,  being  deceived  was  in  the  transgression.  Yet  as  the  Union 
was  such,  that  Christ  was  not  without  the  Church,  nor  the  Church  without 
him,  at  any  time,  it  was  equitable  for  her  Curse  and  Condemnation  to  fall 
upon  him.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the  Scriptures  affirm,  that  by  the  offence  of  one, 
Judgment  came  upon  all  men,  unto  condemnation.  For  all  have  sinned,  and 
come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.  It  is  evident  hence,  that  in  Adam's  offence, 
all  offended ;  which  supposes  such  a  Union  between  Adam  and  his 
Offspring ;  that  his  sin  was  their  sin ;  and  his  ruin  their  ruin ;  thus  by  his 
offence,  were  they  made  sinners;  whilst  They  included  in  him  were  in 
Passivity,  and  He  the  active  consciousness  of  the  whole.  ...  If  it  be 
granted,  that  there  was  such  an  Union  between  Adam  and  his  Offspring, 
as  rendered  his  sin  theirs ;  why  should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible, 
that  the  like  Union,  subsisting  between  Jesus  and  his  Seed,  renders  his  con- 
dition theirs?  .  .  .  This  manifests  such  an  Union  to  him,  such  an  inclusion 
of  the  whole  seed  in  him,  as  renders  his  condition  theirs,  in  every  state 
which  he  passes  through;  insomuch  that  his  righteousness,  with  all  the 
blessings  and  fruits  thereof,  is  theirs,  before  they  have  known  it,  believed 
it,  or  ever  were  conscious  of  Existence.2 

1  Union,  pp.  15-18,  London  edition,  1759.      2  Ibid.  pp.  18-21. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


163 


Christ  the  Vine,  All  Men  the;  Branches. 

As  another  illustration  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  union  with  the 
human  race,  Relly  takes  and  perverts  our  Lord's  beautiful  parable 
of  The  Vine  and  the  Branches.  Christ  uses  this  similitude  to  set 
forth  the  relation  of  his  own  disciples  only  to  himself.  Relly  uses 
it  to  set  forth  the  relation  of  all  men  to  Christ.  Our  Lord  seeks, 
in  this  parable,  to  illustrate  the  close  but  voluntary  relation  which 
he  desires  his  disciples  to  sustain  to  himself.  He  exhorts  them  to 
abide  in  him,  and  depicts  the  terrible  consequences  to  them  in 
case  they  should  not,  of  their  own  choice  and  action,  abide  in 
him.  Relly  seeks  by  the  same  parable  to  illustrate  the  involun- 
tary and  necessary  relation  which  all  men  do  actually  sustain  to 
Christ  even  in  their  own  passivity,  or  irrespective  of  their  own 
choice  and  action.    Speaking  of  the  vine,  Relly  says  :  — 

When  the  Stock,  or  Set,  is  first  planted,  there  are  no  Branches  thereon ; 
but  nevertheless,  the  Husbandman,  knowing  its  seed  to  be  in  itself, 
planteth  in  hope ;  being  well  assured  of  its  putting  forth  its  Branches, 
and  bearing  fruit  thereon  in  due  season.  All  his  skill,  care  and  suffi- 
ciency standing  ingaged  for  the  same. 

Thus  Jesus,  when  first  planted  by  the  Father's  hand,  as  the  first,  and 
only  Begotten,  Chosen,  and  Beloved,  was  as  the  Stock  or  Set,  whose 
Branches  doth  not  appear.  But  having  then  his  seed  in  himself,  he  was 
to  put  them  forth  in  his  Branches  in  due  season;  according  to  the 
appointment,  and  foreknowledge  of  the  Great  Husbandman :  His  Wis- 
dom, Power,  Care,  and  All-sufficiency,  standing  ingaged  for  the  same. 
As  the  Stem,  and  Branches,  make  one  Tree,  so  Jesus,  and  the  People  [the 
human  race]  make  one  Body,  one  Man,  one  Christ,  one  Elect,  one  Beloved 
of  the  Father,  one  crucified,  raised,  and  everliviug.  The  Stock  and 
Branches,  making  one  Tree,  grow  in  one  soil :  so  Christ  and  the  People, 
are  jointly  rooted,  and  grounded,  in  the  Father's  Love :  And  hast  loved 
them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me.  Heirs  of  God  and  Joint-Heirs  with  Christ: 
Standing  with  Him,  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Divine  Majesty.  .  .  .  The 
Root  and  Branches  making  one  Tree,  have  but  one  and  the  same  Life, 
Sap,  and  Fruitfulness.  So  Christ  and  the  People  have  both  one,  and  the 
same  eternal  Life :  God  hath  given  us  eternal  Life,  and  this  Life  is  in  his 
Son.  Therefore  the  Saviour  saith,  because  Hive,  ye  shall  live  also.  They 
have  also  the  same  Fruit,  for  the  fruit  is  not  of  the  branches  distinct 
from  the  stem,  nor  of  the  stem  without  the  branches.  So  also  is  Christ, 
who  says,  from  me  is  thy  Fruit  found.    [Hcsea  14  : 8.] 

In  brief,  if  Jesus  meant  to  teach  us  the  Union  subsisting  between 
himself  and  his  Church  under  the  similitude  of  the  Vine  and  its  Branches, 
which  he  certainly  did :  Then,  whatever  can  be  said  of  the  oneness  of 


164 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


the  Tree,  consisting  of  Stock  and  Branches,  as  a  Figure,  can,  with  much 
more  propriety,  he  said  of  Christ  and  the  people  united,  as  the  Thing 
signified.  The  date  of  that  Union  which  the  Branches  hath  to  the  stem, 
is  equal  to  their  existence :  Yea,  as  considered  in  the  stock,  the  Union 
which  made  them  one  therewith  was  before  they  had  any  apparent 
existence.  And,  though  tlie  Vine-stock  in  itself  may  have  the  most  fruit- 
ful qualities;  yet  it  cannot  exhibit  the  same,  hy  bringing  forth  Fruit  to 
perfection,  except  it  first  put  forth  its  proper  Branches :  Therefore  the 
existence  of  the  Branches,  yea  the  Union  thereof  to  the  Stem,  and  their 
Life  therein,  is  before,  yea  necessarily  antecedent  to  all  their  fruitful 
productions.  So  also  is  Christ;  our  Union  to  hiin  bearing  a  superior 
Date  to  our  apparent,  personal  existence.  Therefore,  said  to  be  chosen 
in  Him.  and  to  have  (jrace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began.  ...  In  order  to  their  fruitfulness,  the  Branches  were 
purged  in  the  Vine :  There  the  superfluities  of  the  whole  were  cut  off, 
and  all  necessary  for  their  perpetual  fruitfulness  accomplished.  In  like 
manner,  the  Church  [all  men]  included  in  Christ,  were  purged  in  him,  in 
order  to  their  fruitfulness.  .  .  .  The  Vine  thus  purged,  brings  its  fruit 
upon  the  native  Branches :  having  no  other  medium  of  bringing  it  forth. 
Thus  Christ  brought  forth  all  the  fruit  of  his  pure  conception,  his  spot- 
less birth,  his  circumcision,  and  holy  Life,  his  bloody,  shameful  and 
terrible  Death,  his  glorious  resurrection  and  ascension,  upon  the  people, 
as  the  Branches.  Having  taken  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  he  in  them, 
and  they  in  him,  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  obeyed  the  Law,  and  endured 
the  penalty  for  the  past  transgression,  being  thus  made  perfect  in  one. 
And  because  in  all  this  the  people  were  in  passivity,  and  Christ  the  active 
consciousness,  and  quickening  spirit  of  the  whole;  therefore  saith  the 
Prophet,  Lord,  thou  wilt  ordain  peace  for  us,  for  thou  also  hast  wrought  all 
our  works  in  us.x 

The  Human  Race  the  Body  of  Christ. 

The  illustration  which  Rellv  and  his  followers  used  oftener, 
perhaps,  than  auy  other,  to  indicate  their  idea  of  the  union  of 
all  men  with  Christ,  was  that  of  the  oneness  of  the  head  and 
members  in  the  human  body.  One  of  their  favorite  Scriptures 
was:  "For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and 
all  the  members  of  that  one  body,  being  many  are  one  body,  so 
also  is  Christ."    Upon  this  Scripture  Kelly  remarks  :  — 

The  compleat  Body  here  spoken  of  is  similar  to  Christ,  and  the  Mem- 
bers which  fill  up  this  Body  to  the  people.  Take  away  the  members, 
and  there  will  remain  no  body;  take  a  few,  yea  one  only  away,  and  the 
body  is  not  perfect ;  deny  the  proportionable  perfection  of  any  one  of 

1  Union,  pp.  29-33. 


V 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


165 


the*e  members,  and  then  the  Symmetry  of  the  Body  is  destroyed.  So 
also  is  Christ;  take  away  the  people  [all  the  members  of  the  human 
race  J,  or  deny  that  they  were  united  to  their  Head  Jesus  at  some  cer- 
tain time,  then  was  there  at  that  time  no  Christ :  Or,  if  all  the  Church 
[the  entire  race]  were  not  united  to  Him,  but  some  particular  member, 
or  members,  stood  at  any  time  unrelated  to  him;  then  was  he  not  a 
perfect  Christ  at  that  time :  Or,  if  it  is  possible  that  a  bone  of  that  Body 
should  be  broken,  or  a  member  be  cut  off,  then  may  he  yet  be  rendered 
an  imperfect  Christ:  and  withall  a  deficiency  in  his  power  will  appear. 
.  .  .  Or,  if  this  Church  [the  race],  as  united  to  Christ,  is  not  perfect 
according  to  the  perfection  of  beauty,  in  Righteousness,  Holyness, 
Wisdom ;  &c.  then  is  Christ  deficient  in  those  particulars :  Which  to 
affirm,  will  be  agreed  by  all  his  worshipers,  to  be  blasphemy.  From 
hence  we  may  infer,  that  whatever  Jesus  was,  whatever  he  did,  suffered, 
or  now  is,  under  the  Character  Christ,  the  people,  as  the  fullness  of  him 
who  filleth  all  in  all,  are  not  excluded ;  but  to  be  considered  with  him, 
and  in  him,  in  the  same  circumstances,  and  condition,  through  every 
dispensation.  .  .  .  This  leads  us  to  the  consideration  of  the  human 
Body,  as  the  intelligible  figure  of  this  sublimity,  our  Union  with  Christ. 
The  Head  and  Members  are  one  in  conception :  This  represents  the 
people's  oneness  with  Christ,  as  the  object  of  the  Father's  love.  Thou 
hast  loved  them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me.  As  the  Head  and  the  Members 
are  born  at  once:  so  Christ  and  his  Church  [the  race]  were  united  in  his 
Birth ;  as  pure,  and  free  from  the  original  Taint.  And  also  in  his  glori- 
ous resurrection,  as  born  from  the  Dead.  ...  As  the  Head  and  Members 
in  one  Body  have  but  one  Life ;  so  Christ  and  his  Church  [the  race]  have 
but  one  eternal  Life,  one  Life  unto  God ;  our  eternal  life  is  in  Christ.1 

He  [Christ],  as  having  the  People  in  Himself,  had  the  right  of 
redemption,  and  as  them  stood  engaged  to  fulfill  every  requisite,  to  the 
glory  of  God,  and  their  eternal  salvation  :  which  requisites  were  first  a 
holy  principle,  a  privation  of  original  guilt,  fulfilled  in  his  Birth;  a  just 
observance  of  the  Law,  and  conformity  to  the  Divine  nature,  fulfilled 
in  his  Life ;  and  a  full  propitiation  for  the  sin  that  was  past,  accomplished 
in  his  sufferings  and  Death.  The  whole  of  which  He  did ;  as  containing 
the  People  in  Himself,  who  are  upon  that  account,  not  only  represented 
as  being  in  Him,  in  his  Birth,  as  above;  but  also  in  the  whole  of  his 
life,  death,  and  resurrection.  In  him  were  they  circumcised,  and  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  their  flesh  put  off  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ. 
In  him  fulfilling  the  Law,  and  walking  in  all  the  ordinances  of  God 
blameless.  Crucified  with  him ;  and  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was 
the  resurrection  of  the  people  from  Death,  as  the  wages  of  sin,  the 
Holy  Ghost  testifies  by  the  prophets.  .  .  .  From  hence  it  is  evident, 
that  the  union  between  Christ,  and  the  People,  was  such  (as  Head  and 
Members  in  one  Body)  that  they  were  with  Him,  and  in  Him,  in  his  Birth, 
his  Life,  his  Death,  Resurrection  and  Glory.   Therefore  his  Sufferings, 

1  Union,  pp.  34,  35. 


1G6 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


Wars,  and  Triumphs,  all  are  theirs :  And  they  have  a  right  from  this,  to 
rejoice  in  Him ;  in  what  He  has  done,  in  what  He  is ;  and  in  the  accept- 
ance He  hath  found  with  the  Father ;  and  that,  over  all  the  weakness,  and 
vanity,  they  perceive  in  themselves.1 

This  Vital  Union  of  all  Men  with  Christ  Precedes 
Personal  Holiness. 
Relly  taught  that  all  men  are  vitally  united  to  Christ  irrespect- 
ive of  any  act  on  their  part  and  before  they  repent  of  their  sins 
or  believe  on  Christ.    He  says  :  — 

But  if  what  I  have  already  offered  to  the  consideration  of  the  publick 
shall  be  allowed  to  have  any  weight,  or  argumentative  force;  it  will  ap- 
pear, that  our  Union  with  Christ  is  not  only  antecedent  to  our  Faith  and 
believing,  but  also  to  all  that  he  did,  and  suffered  for  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation.2 

But  to  be  brief,  what  hath  already  been  urged  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  Union,  proves  it  to  be  also  before  faith ;  it  being  necessary  unto  the 
Father's  loving  us,  as  he  loved  the  Son,  yea  unto  his  choice  of  us  in  his 
son ;  necessary  unto  the  engagements  of  Christ  on  man's  behalf,  other- 
wise he  had  not  the  right  of  redemption ;  necessary  unto  his  suffering 
the  Death  of  the  Cross  for  us,  as  hath  been  largely  shown  in  the 
former  part  of  this  work.3 

The  Race  in  Christ  from  All  Eternity. 
Therefore  if  it  is  true,  that  Jesus  was  delivered  for  our  offences, 
and  raised  again  for  our  justification,  and  that  before  our  Faith;  that 
which  was  necessary  unto  this  transaction,  namely  our  Union  with  him, 
is  true  also  before  faith.  If  it  is  not  our  faith,  or  believing,  that  makes 
this  Union,  then  it  is  an  act  of  eternal  Love,  the  purpose,  and  grace,  which 
was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began;  The  Antiquity  of  » 
which  is  obvious,  nor  may  its  Date  be  fixed,  because  exceeding  the 
Limits  of  Time.  And  what  hath  been  from  everlasting,  will  be  unto 
everlasting,  the  eternal  sameness  of  the  person  of  Jesus  being  an  unde- 
niable proof  of  the  unchangeableness  of  this  Union.  ...  If  the  Union 
of  Christ  and  the  Church,  is  dependent  on  her  faith,  and  knowledge  of 
him,  then  it  is  proportioned  unto  her  faith;  and  admits  of  degrees,  is 
also  subject  to  change,  yea  may  possibly  be  dissolved :  .  .  .  From  all 
which  it  appears,  that  the  Union  of  Christ  and  his  Church  [the  race] 
hath  been  of  old,  before  Faith,  before  Time :  and  remains  to  be  indis- 
solvable,  and  unchangeable." 

All  Impenitent  Sinners  are  What  Christ  is. 
Our  right  and  priviledge  is  to  Judge  of  ourselves  and  our  state  towards 
God,  by  Union  with  Christ :  By  the  Father's  choice  of  him,  His  choice  of 
i  Union,  pp.  41,  42.      2  Ibid.  p.  51.      3 Ibid.  pp.  54,  55.      *  Ibid.  pp.  58,  59, 60. 


TJiird  Particular  Complaint. 


107 


us;  by  his  love  to  him,  his  love  unto  us;  by  his  acceptance  of  him,  his 
acceptance  of  us;  by  his  eternal  life  and  glory,  our  eternal  life  and 
glory  :  and  all  this  without  considering  the  work  of  our  hands,  or  the 
desires,  yearnings,  or  meditations  of  our  Hearts.  .  .  .  But  unto  all  the 
Gentiles,  the  outcasts,  the  destitute,  the  Sinners  amongst  Mankind; 
with  all  who  know  themselves,  and  groan  beneath  the  miseries  of  man; 
Here  are  tidings  of  great  Joy :  there  is  a  Saviour  born  unto  you,  a  Sav- 
iour who  is  Christ  the  Lord ;  and  what  is  more,  tho'  you  are  worthless, 
He  is  worthy;  though  you  are  lost,  He  is  found;  though  you  are 
unrighteous,  unholy,  unwise,  yet  He  is  Righteous,  Hob,  Wise;  and 
withal],  so  nearly  related,  so  closely  united  unto  you,  that  you  may 
Reckon  yourselves  to  be  what  he  is,  and  viewing  him  as  yourselves  through 
all  He  did,  and  suffered,  have  your  conscience  purged  from  Dead  works ; 
stand  washed,  and  acquitted  in  his  Bloody  Death,  and  have  the  answer 
of  a  good  conscience  towards  God,  by  his  resurrection.1 

Personal  Repentance,  Faith,  and  Holiness  of  No  Account. 

It  is  the  Scripture  testimony  of  Jesus,  what  he  is,  and  what  He  hath 
done,  and  suffered,  that  is  the  ground  of  our  confidence ;  and  not  the 
reflection  that  we  repent,  believe,  or  obey ;  and  it  is  most  certain  that 
this  ground  remaineth,  that  This  foundation  is  unshaken,  For  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  same  Yesterday,  To-day,  and  forever ;  and  that  our  unbelief,  or 
any  change  passing  over  us  in  ourselves,  cannot  alter  him  who  is  un- 
changeable, and  always  Righteous  and  accepted.  In  him  we  are  always 
as  he  is,  according  to  which  similitude  God  always  beholds  us,  and 
accepts  us ;  therefore,  our  change  of  frame  or  disposition  cannot  change 
His.views  of  us;  For,  as  he  only  beholds  us  in  Jesus,  He  can  always  say, 
that  he  beholds  no  iniquity  in  Jacob,  nor  perverseness  in  Israel.  .  .  .  Sal- 
vation and  Perfection  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  by  Union  with  Him,  is 
that  glorious  Truth,  which  first  authorizes,  encourages,  and  influences  to 
believe,  and  that  which  preserves  us  spotless  and  acceptable  unto  God, 
when  we  fail  to  believe  and  credit  his  testimony.2 

Man  of  Himself  cannot  do  what  God  Requires  of  Him. 

Relly  held  that  man  of  himself  has  no  power  to  obey  the  com- 
mands of  either  the  law  or  the  gospel.  The  exhortations  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles,  urging  men  to  repent  of  their  sins  and  believe 
on  Christ  for  forgiveness,  justification,  and  salvation,  were  re- 
garded by  Relly  as  parts  of  the  divine  law,  and  he  taught  that 
man  is  utterly  incapable  of  conforming  to  such  exhortations.  To 
the  question,  Why,  then,  is  obedience  to  the  law  and  the  gospel 
required  of  men?  Relly  answers  :  — 

1  Union,  pp.  90,  91.      2  Ibid.  pp.  96,  97. 


168 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


The  Scriptures  do  not  require  this  of  man,  as  supposing  him  capable 
of  it;  for  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ  into  the  world  to  save  sinners 
proves  the  contrary :  the  law  was  given  that  the  offence  might  abound, 
and  the  commandment  took  place  that  man  might  die.  It  was  to  dis- 
tinguish to  man,  between  good  and  evil,  and  to  make  him  sensible  that 
he  could  not  perform  the  good;  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  by 
proving  the  necessity  and  utility  of  the  Saviour's  appearance,  as  the 
fulflller  of  all  righteousness,  that  the  law  took  place :  but  Christ  being 
come  in  the  flesh,  and  having  fulfilled  all,  In  us  and  For  us,  his  virtue 
and  glory  isfcmrs,  and  we  are  taught  to  reckon  by  him,  and  not  by  the 
work  of  our  own  hands.1 

Speaking  of  our  relation  to  the  law  given  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, Relly  affirms  that  we 

cannot  personally  fulfil  its  precepts,  forasmuch  as  we  are  not  under  it. 
And  he  adds  :  — 

The  law,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  made  to  detect,  expose,  and  censure 
all  human  righteousness;  and  that  it  doth  continually,  lest  at  any  time 
the  Christian  man,  forgetting  the  hole  of  the  pit  from  whence  he  was 
digged,  and  the  rock  from  whence  he  was  hewn,  should  grow  wise  in 
his  own  eyes,  and  holy  in  his  own  conceit.2 

Style  of  Writing. 

Kelly's  antique  and  uncouth  style  of  writing,  his  abundant  use 
of  italics  and  capital  letters,  with  his  bad  grammar  and  spelling, 
and  his  frequent  use  of  words  and  phrases  in  other  than  their 
usual  and  true  sense,  are  at  first  quite  confusing  to  the  reader. 
But  after  a  careful  examination  of  a  few  pages  of  any  of  his 
writings  his  meaning  is  much  less  obscure.  If  his  purpose  was 
to  abate  the  odiousness  of  some  of  his  doctrines  by  attaching  to 
certain  familiar  words  a  new  meaning,  he  was  not  successful. 
His  pantheistic  Universalism  is  poorly  concealed  by  his  using  the 
word  "  church"  to  designate  the  human  race,  the  word  "  people  " 
to  designate  all  men,  and  the  scriptural  phrase,  "  in  Christ,"  to 
designate,  not  a  voluntary  union  to  Christ  in  quenchless  love  and 
sympathy,  in  undying  faith  and  service,  but  an  involuntary  and 
necessary  union,  and  even  identity  of  every  man  with  Christ  in 
essence  of  being.  However,  of  this  vicious  and  dishonest  practice 
of  using  familiar  religious  terms  and  phrases  after  one  has 

1  True  Christian  Baptism,  p.  74.     Tbid.  p.  75. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


169 


emptied  them  of  all  the  meaning  they  have  had,  Relly  was  not 
more  guilty  than  are  the  new-departure  men  of  to-day.  Indeed, 
the  obscurity  in  the  Rellyan  writings  of  a  century  and  more  ago, 
so  far  as  it  arose  from  this  unscholarly  and  indefensible  practice, 
is  not  so  great  as  is  that  arising  from  the  same  source  in  tbe  writ- 
ings of  the  modern  progressives  at  Andover.  The  old  Rellyan 
progressives,  like  their  lineal  descendants  of  our  time,  never 
defined  a  theological  term,  phrase,  or  doctrine.  Still  no  candid 
person  at  all  versed  in  the  science  of  theology  can  read  the  theo- 
logical writings  of  James  Relly  and  carefully  compare  them  with 
those  of  the  progressive  divines  at  Andover,  and  not  admit  that 
the  two  theologies,  though  bearing  different  names,  are  at  their 
very  centre  and  core  and  in  nearly  all  their  development  abso- 
lutely the  same. 

"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  Rellyan  Universalism. 

1.  The  above  quotations  from  James  Relly  abundantly  show 
that,  in  his  belief,  Christ  is  not  simply  present  with  all  men,  nor  is 
He  united  to  all  men  through  their  faith  in  Him,  but  He  exists  in 
organic  and  vital  union  with  every  member  of  the  human  race. 
This  is  the  one  radical  and  regnant  principle  in  Rellyanism.  But 
it  is  also,  according  to  the  confession  of  the  Andover  progressives, 
the  radical  and  regnant  principle  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

Christ  the  Life  of  All  Men. 

2.  Relly  teaches  that  Christ  exists  in  union  with  the  entire 
human  race  by  being  the  life  of  every  man.  But  this  is  a  central 
and  indispensable  dogma  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  which 
affirms  that  Christ's  "  universe  is  not  attached  to  him  externally, 
but  vitally.  He  is  not  a  governor  set  over  it,  but  is  its  life  every- 
where."   Of  course,  then,  he  is  the  life  of  every  man. 

The  Race-union  with  Christ  Involuntary. 

3.  Rellyanism  holds  that  all  men  are  united  to  Christ,  not  vol- 
untarily, or  of  their  own  choice  through  faith,  but  in  the  very 
constitution  and  essence  of  their  being,  and  therefore  involun- 
tarily and  of  absolute  necessity,  so  far  as  their  own  wills  are  con- 
cerned.   But  this  too  is  one  of  the  fundamental  beliefs  set  forth 


170 


Tliird  Particular  Complaint. 


by  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  which  declares  that  "  the  race"  — 
not  some  men,  but  "the  race  is  oeconstituted  in  Christ,"  and 
that  consequently  it  now  contains  powers  for  repentance  and  holi- 
ness, which  —  without  its  being  "reconstituted  in  Christ"  — 
"it  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  of." 

Christ  and  the  Race  One  Person. 

4.  It  is  a  primary  doctrine  of  Rellyanism  that  Christ  is  in  all 
men,  and  that  all  men  are  in  Christ  in  such  a  way  that  together 
they  constitute  a  single  personality,  "one  person."    Relly  says : 

We  are  taught  in  the  scriptures  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not  only 
our  friend,  our  benefactor,  our  kinsman,  our  brother,  but  ourselves  [the 
italics  ours] :  one  flesh,  one  blood,  one  spirit  with  us :  the  people,  as 
many,  make  one  Christ;  as  the  members,  being  many,  make  one  body. 
Christ  and  the  church  are  considered  in  the  scriptures,  throughout  the 
whole  of  his  undertakings  and  attainments,  as  but  one  person  [italics 
ours] ;  in  the  articles  of  his  sufferings  and  death  as  the  guilty  sinner, 
whose  soul  was  doomed  to  die ;  and  in  his  resurrection,  as  the  righteous, 
the  sanctified,  made  perfect  through  sufferings.  Jesus  being  thus  made 
of  God  unto  us  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification.  and  redemption; 
lie  being  the  New-Creature,  the  perfect  Man,  not  only  for  Himself,  but 
for  the  people :  .  .  .  from  hence  we  have  an  undoubted  right,  to  con- 
sider him  as  our  New-Man  ;  and  to  deny  every  self,  in  our  appeal  to  the 
Highest,  but  Him  who  is  our  perfect  self.1 

But  this  oneness  in  personality  of  Christ  and  the  human  race  is 
likewise  a  central  and  vital  doctrine  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
which  dwells  much  upon  Christ's  person  as  vitally  attached  to,  and 
containing  in  itself,  the  entire  human  race,  and  which  declares  of 
Christ  that  He  is  "  the  universal  man,"  "the  universal  Person."2 
The  doctrine  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  that  Christ,  wher- 
ever He  is  and  whatever  He  does,  even  when  lifted  upon  the  cross, 
includes  in  his  personality  all  men  who  ever  did  or  ever  will  exist. 
Its  language  is  :  — 

No  member  of  the  race  is  separate  from  him  who  thus  offers  himself.3 
What  Christ  Is  and  Does,  the  Race  Is  and  Does. 

5.  It  is  the  repeated  affirmation  of  James  Relly  that  Christ 
and  all  men  are  so  united  and  included  in  one  person  that  his  con- 
dition and  acts  are  theirs,  and  that  their  condition  and  acts  are 

■  The  True  Christian  Baptism,  p.  98.      2  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  53,  fi3.      3  Ibid.  p.  06. 


Tfiird  Particular  Complaint. 


171 


his,  and  that  this  is  true  irrespective  of  their  character  as  sinful 
or  holy.  According  to  this  teaching,  the  most  wicked  men  in  the 
race,  even  when  persisting  in  their  wickedness,  are  so  vitally 
united  to  Christ  that  all  his  holy  experiences  and  works  are  theirs. 

But  this  is  also  the  teaching  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy."  We 
are  told  that  "When  Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers.  When 
Christ  is  sorrowful  the  race  is  sorrowful "  ;  that  the  race  can  sig- 
nify its  penitence  "by  pointing  to  Christ,  and  by  giving  expres- 
sion in  Him  to  repentance  which  no  words  could  utter."  (Italics 
ours.)  That  is,  when  Christ  is  sorrowful  in  view  of  the  sins  of 
the  human  race,  the  race  is  sorrowful  in  Christ's  sorrow.  Christ 
in  sorrowing  for  all  the  sins  of  the  race  is  repenting  of  them. 
But  what  Christ  does  the  race  does.  When  Christ  repents,  the 
race  repents.  How  a  sinless  being  can  repent  of  sins,  we  are  not 
told.  But  all  the  same,  this  is  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy."  And 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  Rellyanism.  And  Rellyanism  is 
Universalism  as  well  as  Pantheism  —  the  very  kind  of  Universal- 
ism  which  the  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  had  in  mind  when 
they  wrote  their  Statute  requiring  that  every  professor  on  their 
Foundation,  to  the  end  of  time,  should  solemnly  promise  to 
oppose  Universalism. 

Personal  Obedience  and  Holiness  not  Conditions  of  Vital 
Union  with  Christ. 

6.  According  to  Rellyanism,  this  organic  and  vital  union  of 
Christ  with  all  men  precedes  the  repentance  and  faith  of  men. 
Indeed  it  exists,  as  already  shown,  irrespective  of  their  own  moral 
and  religious  character.  The  most  wicked,  as  well  as  the  most 
righteous,  men  are  in  Christ,  as  a  constituent  part  of  his  Person, 
before  they  repent  of  their  sins,  or  believe  on  him,  or  even  know 
of  his  existence.    This  is  a  cardinal  Rellyan  doctrine. 

But  it  is  also  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy." 
The  belief  of  the  Andover  progressives  is  that  repentance  and 
faith  are  impossible  without  this  union,  and  that  the  union  itself 
is  a  oneness  of  all  men  with  Christ,  not  in  character  but  in  essence 
of  being,  and  of  course  precedes  all  personal  obedience  and 
holiness.  But  they  are  slow  to  reason  from  this  belief  as  a  pre- 
mise. They  have  not  yet  told  us  how  old  this  union  is.  It  exists 
before  repentance ;  but  how  long  before  ?    The  progressiveness 


172 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


of  these  professors  is  their  standing  boast.  They  are  nothing 
if  they  are  not  progressive.  Yet,  in  truth,  they  are  at  least  a 
century  and  a  half  behind  the  times.  The  unlearned  Relly,  in  the 
middle  of  the  last  century,  taking  this  same  principle  of  the  organic 
and  vital  union  of  all  men  with  Christ  as  a  premise,  reasoned 
from  it  with  a  vigor  and  boldness,  and  reached  legitimate  conclu- 
sions with  a  swiftness  which  should  put  to  shame  the  drowsy  and 
tardy  progressives  at  Audover.  He  argued  that  if  the  very 
essence  and  life  of  Christ's  being  are  constituent  parts  of  every 
man's  being,  then  every  man's  union  with  Christ  was  not  simply 
before  repentance  and  faith,  but  also  before  time  ;  indeed,  was 
"  from  everlasting,"  and  "  will  be  unto  everlasting,-"  "  indissolv- 
able  and  unchangeable."  Every  man,  therefore,  has  been  a  con- 
stituent part  of  the  being  of  Christ  through  all  past  eternity,  and 
will  be  such  through  all  the  eternity  that  is  to  come.  We  repeat, 
the  progressives  at  Andover  have  for  years  accepted  the  iden- 
tical premise  from  which  Kelly  deduced  the  truth  of  every  man's 
existence  in  Christ  from  all  eternity,  and  it  is  not  to  the  credit  of 
their  scholarship  that  an  unlettered  man  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  ago  reached  such  a  legitimate  and  grand  conclusion,  while 
they,  with  their  superior  scholastic  advantagas  have  not  reached 
it  yet.  It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  men  of 
advanced  thought  at  Andover  are,  by  force  of  circumstances, 
lingering  long  in  a  transition  state.  If  they  retain  their  comfort- 
able positions  in  a  well-endowed  Seminary,  they  must  keep  them- 
selves in  some  kind  of  connection  with  the  Seminary  Creed.  So 
they  are  attempting  the  impossible  feat  of  standing  with  one  foot 
on  the  permanent  Andover  Creed,  and  the  other  foot  on  their  own 
ever-changing  Orthodoxy.  But  the  exhibition  they  are  making  of 
themselves  in  this  attempted  theological  straddle  is  as  ridiculous 
as  it  is  unscholarly.  If  they  would  only  found  a  Seminary  of 
their  own,  for  the  express  and  sublime  purpose  of  recovering  the 
old  pagan  Pantheism  of  ancient  Greece  and  India,  and  of  adjust- 
ing Christianity  to  that  Pantheism  after  the  manner  adopted  by 
James  Relly,  they  would  make  much  swifter  progress  than  they 
have  yet  made,  and  although  it  would  be  backward  towards 
heathenism,  they  would  be  guilty  of  no  perversion  of  trust  funds, 
and  in  this  particular  at  least  would  stand  before  God  and  the 
world  as  honest  men. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


173 


Man  Repents  only  in  Union  with  Christ. 
7.  Rellyanism  teaches,  as  has  been  clearly  set  forth  in  one  of 
the  quotations  made  above  from  James  Relly,  that  while  man  of 
himself  cannot  repent,  nor  obey  any  of  the  commands  of  the 
gospel,  yet  in  organic  and  vital  union  with  Christ,  and  as  a 
constituent  part  of  his  very  person,  he  can  and  does  repent.  As 
every  man  is  literally  and  constitutionally  "  in  Christ,"  when 
Christ  is  sorrowful  for  the  sins  of  the  world  every  man  is  sorrow- 
ful, though  Christ  is  active  in  and  conscious  of  this  sorrow,  and 
man  is  passive  in  and  unconscious  of  it.  When  Christ,  in  the  days 
of  his  flesh,  offered  up  prayers  and  supplications  with  strong 
crying  and  tears,  He  repented  of  the  sins  of  the  whole  race ; 
and  when  He  thus  repented,  the  race,  which  was  passively  and 
unconsciously  in  Him,  repented  also.  Such  is  the  teaching  of 
Rellyanism. 

Such  also  is  the  teaching  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  The 
latter  affirms  that  "  man  of  himself  cannot  repent,"  but  "  when 
Christ  is  sorrowful,  the  race  is  sorrowful."  The  Audover  pro- 
gressives refer  approvingly  to  McLeod  Campbell's  wild  theory  of 
race-repentance  in  Christ's  repentance,  and  they  boldly  declare 
that  "  The  entire  race  .  .  .  renders  in  Him  [Christ]  a  complete 
repentance."  It  hardly  needs  to  be  again  repeated  that  this 
belief  and  this  teaching  of  James  Relly  and  of  the  Andover  pro- 
fessors are  in  outright  antagonism  to  the  Andover  Creed,  which 
affirms,  "  that  man  has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength 
[full  mental  and  bodily  ability]  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of 
him  ;  so  that  nothing,  but  the  sinner's  aversion  to  holiness,  pre- 
vents his  salvation."  Never,  within  the  range  of  our  knowledge, 
has  there  been  a  more  glaring  and  undeniable  violation  of  sacred 
engagements  than  that  of  which  those  Andover  professors  are 
guilty,  who  have  maintained  and  inculcated,  on  Andover  Founda- 
tions, the  pantheistic  Universalism  which  is  inseparable  from  their 
own  and  James  Relly's  theory  of  repentance. 

John  Murray's  Rellyanism. 
We  now  call  the  attention  of  the  Board  of  Visitors  to  the  fact 
that  John  Murray,  "the  father  of  Universalism  in  America," 
who,  as  we  have  shown,  was  well  known  to  the  Founders  of  An- 
dover Seminary,  and  with  whose  singular  and  divisive  theological 


174 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


beliefs  the  Founders  were  perfectly  familiar,  was  himself  a  thor- 
oughgoing Rellyanist.  He  accepted  and  preached  the  Universal- 
istic  and  pantheistic  beliefs  of  James  Relly  without  abatement, 
and  also  without  addition,  save  as  he  may  have  exceeded  his 
teacher  in  the  violent  wresting  of  Scripture  and  in  the  adroit  con- 
cealment of  his  Universalism  when  his  persoual  interests  or  suc- 
cess required  it.  The  central  and  essential  principle  in  his  the- 
ology, as  in  that  of  Relly  and  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  is 
the  organic  and  vital  union  of  the  entire  human  race  with  Christ. 
All  his  development  and  applications  of  this  principle  were 
thoroughly  Rellyan,  and  in  full  accord  with  recent  progressive 
teachings  at  Andover.  A  few  citations  from  the  writings  of  John 
Murray  will  make  the  truth  of  these  statements  evident. 

The  Life  of  Christ  and  of  Man  One  Life. 
Speaking  of  the  one  life  that  is  common  to  Christ  and  to  all 
men,  Murray  passionately  exclaims  :  — 

Yea,  were  every  man  in  the  world  to  unite  in  their  testimony  against 
this  truth,  viz.  that  God  hath  given  me,  and  every  man,  life,  and  that  this 
life  is  in  his  son,  I  would  still  say,  Let  God  be  true  and  every  man  a  liar.1 

"  Again,"  Murray  remarks, 1,1  if  the  people  had  not  been  in  him  [Christ], 
in  all  he  wrought,  they  could  not  be  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  nor 
could  he,  according  to  justice,  be  the  life  of  the  world;  for  neither  the 
world  in  general,  nor  any  individual  of  the  world,  can  be  the  subject  of 
life,  according  to  the  rule  of  divine  truth  and  justice,  without  that 
righteousness  which  alone  gives  a  legal  title  thereto.  If,  saith  divine 
truth,  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments;  this  is  accord- 
ing to  the  Law, —  and  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away  before  one  jot 
or  tittle  of  the  Law  shall  pass  unfulfilled.  .  .  .  Hence  then,  he  [Christ] 
is  the  life  of  the  world  in  consequence  of  the  union  subsisting  between  him 
and  the  people,  as  exemplified  under  the  figure-of  the  head  and  the  mem- 
bers of  which  the  Spirit  spake,  when  by  the  Apostle  he  said,  I  would  not 
have  you  ignorant  that  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ.  Now,  as  in  nature 
what  is  done  by  the  head  is  with  spirit,  justice  and  propriety  said  to  be 
done  by  the  whole  man,  so  what  was  done  by  Jesus  as  every  man's  headf 
made  under  the  Law,  is  according  to  strict  justice  in  God's  sight  consid- 
ered as  done  by  every  man.  The  revelation  of  this  is  indeed  glad  tidings 
to  every  creature." 2 

This  fanciful  doctrine,  that  whatever  Christ  does  or  suffers  as 
the  Head,  the  race,  as  the  body  of  Christ,  also  does  and  suffers, 

i  Letters  and  Sketches  of  Sermous,  by  John  Murray,  vol.  i,  p.  46.  2 Universalism 
in  America,  by  Richard  Eddy,  D.D.,  vol.  i,  p.  487. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


175 


it  will  be  observed, is  the  exact  doctrine  set  forth  by  James  Eelly 
and  by  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy."  This  dogma  is  grounded  upon 
the  belief  that  Christ  and  the  race  constitute  one  person,  and 
this  belief  is  grounded  upon  the  pantheistic  notion  that  the  life  of 
Christ  and  the  world,  and  of  all  men,  is  one  and  the  same  life. 
Hence  Murray  held  that  Christ  is  "  the  only  life  of  the  world," 
and  "  of  every  individual  in  it."  In  his  view  there  is  but  one 
Life.  Its  source  is  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  it  pervades  the  world. 
It  is,  however,  the  oneness  of  this  Life  in  Christ  and  in  all  men 
upon  which  he  chiefly  and  most  exultiugly  dwells.  In  his  belief, 
Christ  and  the  human  race,  in  some  real  sense,  constitute  one  per- 
son, having  one  life.  Christ  in  his  personality  is  not  complete 
without  the  race,  and  the  race  is  not  complete  without  Christ. 
Hence  Christ  is  "the  fulness  "or  completion  of  the  race;  and 
the  race  is  "the  fulness"  or  completion  of  Christ.  He  often 
designates  the  entire  human  race  as  "  the  human  nature,"  and 
sometimes  as  "  the  nature."  His  idea  of  this  vital  union  of  all 
men  with  Christ  he  often  sets  forth  by  the  illustration  of  the 
living  union  of  the  human  body  with  its  head,  as  in  the  following 
language : — 

I  would  not,  said  the  Apostle  Paul,  have  you  ignorant  of  this :  Of 
what?  that  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ,  lest  you  should  be  wise  in 
your  own  conceit.  Now  if  Jesus  be  the  head  and  the  fulness  of  the 
Dature  he  assumed,  and  we  are  his  body,  then  the  body  is  safe;  for 
although  the  waters  of  the  adversary  ascended  to  the  neck,  they  could 
reach  no  farther.  It  is  notorious  that  if  the  whole  man  be  immersed 
in  water,  even  to  the  neck,  if  the  head  be  held  above  water,  life  is  pre- 
served. But  reverse  the  figure,  let  the  head  be  enveloped  in  water,  and 
deatli  is  the  certain  consequence.  Thus,  blessed  be  God,  Jesus  is  the 
life,  is  the  head  of  every  man,  the  life  of  the  whole  body.  Your  life  is 
hid  with  Christ  in  God.1 

God  is  manifested  in  the  flesh,  and,  thus  manifested,  he  is,  in  deed  and 
in  truth,  the  life  of  the  world,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  know  God,  and 
not  to  know  my  life.  Moreover,  I  have  life  precisely  in  the  way  that 
the  blinded  children  of  this  world  would  find  it  if  they  could,  that  is,  by 
keeping  the  law;  for,  said  the  great  Master,  I  come  not  to  destroy  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfill  them.  Now  he  did,  or  he  did  not 
fulfil  the  law.  If  he  did,  I  also  have  fulfilled  the  law,  for  the  head  of 
every  man  is  Christ :  and  whatever  is  done  by  my  head  is  assuredly  done 
by  my  whole  body.2 

1  Letters  and  Sketches  of  Sermons,  vol.  ii,  p.  187.      2 Ibid.  vol.  ii,  pp.  368,  369. 


17G 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


Man  of  Himself  Cannot  Repent. 

In  this  last  citation  Murray  intimates  that  the  blinded  children 
of  this  world  would  obtain  life  by  personally  keeping  the  law  "  if 
they  could."  This  implies,  that,  in  his  view,  man  of  himself  can- 
not obey  God.  Upon  the  question  of  man's  personal  ability  to 
do  what  God  requires  of  him,  his  teaching  is  in  perfect  accord 
with  that  of  Relly  and  that  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  He 
held  that  man  of  himself  has  no  power  of  any  kind  to  obey  the 
commands  either  of  the  divine  law  or  of  the  gospel,  but  that 
Christ's  union  with  every  man  is  such  that  when  Christ  keeps  the 
decalogue,  every  man  keeps  it ;  when  Christ  repents,  every  man 
repents  ;  and  when  Christ  believes,  every  man  believes. 

The  Union  of  Every  Man  with  Christ  is  from  Everlasting. 

Murray  also  accords  with  Relly  in  believing  that  every  man  was 
united  to  Christ,  or  to  God  in  Christ,  not  only  before  repentance 
and  faith,  but  before  time,  even  from  everlasting.  The  following 
is  believed  to  be  a  correct  statement  of  Murray's  belief  upon  this 
point,  and  in  several  other  particulars  :  — 

He  believed  that  the  creation  of  human  beings  made  a  part  of  the 
divine  purpo.-e;  in  which  sacred,  uncontrollable,  and  irreversible  pur- 
pose, the  tchole  family  of  man  were  originally  and  intimately  united  to 
their  august  Creator,  in  a  manner  mysterious,  and  as  much  beyond 
our  limited  conception,  as  the  Creator  is  superior  to  the  creature  whom 
He  hath  formed. 

Adam  the  first  was  a  figure  of  Adam  the  second.  Adam  the  first,  the 
prototype ;  Adam  the  second,  the  substance  of  the  prototype,  the  Crea- 
tor of  all  Worlds,  the  Lord  from  Heaven.  The  sacred  Scriptures  abound 
with  figures  of  this  mysterious,  this  ennobling,  this  soul-satisfying 
Union;  among  which,  perhaps,  none  is  more  expressive  than  that  of  the 
Head  and  Members  constituting  one  body,  of  which  Jesus  Christ  was 
the  immaeulate  Head.  .  .  .  We  are  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  who 
is  the  head  of  every  man.  Should  a  single  member  of  this  mystical  body 
be  finally  lost,  the  Redeemer  must,  through  eternity,  remain  imperfect. 

A  Law  was  given,  to  the  complete  obedience  of  which,  everlasting 
life  was  annexed ;  but  no  individual  member  was  ever  able  to  fulfil  this 
Law;  it  was  only  the  head  and  members  collectively  in  their  glorious  head, 
that  was  furnished  with  abilities  adequate  to  a  performance  of  such 
vast  magnitude.  Yea,  verily,  we  do  indeed  break  the  Divine  Law,  in 
thought,  in  word,  and  in  deed,  and  the  lip  of  truth  declares,  he  who 
offends  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


177 


Why  then  was  the  commandment  so  exceeding  broad?  To  convince 
mankind  of  imbecility ;  and  that  the  rectitude  they  had  forfeited,  could 
never,  in  their  own  individual  characters  be  regained.  But  the  plan  of 
Deity  was  without  an  error,  the  revolution  of  time  ushered  in  the  great 
Representative,  or  more  properly  speaking,  the  Head  of  the  body;  and 
the  forfeit  was  paid,  full  atonement  was  presented,  the  ransom  given, 
and,  in  this  hour  of  Nature's  Jubilee,  the  prodigal  family  restored  to 
their  original  possessions.1 

The  Identity  of  Christ's  Human  Nature  with  that  of 
Every  Man. 

Moreover,  Murray  taught  that  Christ's  human  nature  was  not 
simply  that  of  his  own  single  and  distinct  personality,  but  was 
the  human  nature  of  every  man,  and  that  consequently  every 
child  of  Adam  has  a  right  to  regard  Christ's  human  nature  as 
identically  his  own,  and  his  own  as  identically  that  of  Christ.  In 
proof  of  his  view,  he  cites  the  Scripture  so  often  repeated  by 
him,  "The  head  of  every  man  is  Christ."  (1  Cor.  11:3.)  But 
beyond  question,  the  Apostle  means  by  "  every  man,"  not  every 
member  of  the  human  race,  but  simply  every  Christian  man. 
Yet  Murray  presumes  to  set  forth  and  establish,  on  the  authority 
of  this  Scripture  thus  wrested,  his  pantheistic  scheme  of  the 
absolute  numerical  oneness  of  Christ's  human  nature  with  the 
human  nature  of  every  child  of  Adam.  His  language  is  as 
follows :  — 

That  human  nature,  in  which  the  Divine  Nature  condescended  to  be 
clothed,  was  not  distinct  from  the  rest  as  one  body  is  from  another. 
No,  assuredly  no ;  the  clothing  of  the  Redeemer  in  this  body,  was  the 
giving  him  a  part  of  that  flesh  in  which  the  children,  all  the  children 
were  clothed.  Hence  the  character  bestowed  upon,  and  received  by 
Emmanuel.  The  head  of  every  man  is  Christ.  .  .  .  Now  my  head  is  as 
much  a  part  of  one  part  of  my  body  as  the  other;  and  it  is  in  as  perfect 
union  with  my  feet  as  my  hands ;  it  is  as  much  the  life  of  one  member 
as  of  another.  .  .  .  The  human  nature  of  Emmanuel  is  part  of  every 
child's  flesh ;  and  every  human  soul  inhabiting  a  tenement  of  flesh  has 
as  much  right  to  lift  his  adoring  eye  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  part  of  him- 
self, as  any  member  of  my  body  might,  if  it  had  sense  in  itself,  claim, 
my  head  as  a  part  of  itself.  Jesus  is  not  flesh  and  bone,  distinct  from 
our  flesh  and  bone,  but  he  is  flesh  of  our  flesh,  and  bone  of  our  bone. 
For  both  he  who  sanctifieth,  and  they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one. 
And  this  is  at  all  times  the  comprehensive  character  of  the  Redeemer, 

^he  Life  of  Rev.  John  Murray,  edited  by  Rev.  L.  S.  Everett,  p.  265. 


178 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


insomuch  that  when  he  was  born  without  sin.  we  were  in  that  eventful 
moment  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus;  when  he  was  crucified,  we  were 
crucified  with  Christ  Jesus ;  when  he  died  we  were  buried  by  baptism 
into  his  death ;  and  when  he  arose  [were]  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  that  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of 
life.  .  .  .  And  we  ascended  with  Christ,  being  heirs  of  God  and  joint 
heirs  with  Christ.1 

We  Ourselves  are  Christ. 
Murray  also  says  :  — 

When  we  behold  Christ  Jesus,  we  behold  ourselves,  for  he  is  the  head 
of  every  man.  In  him  dwelleth  all  fulness.  In  Christ  Jesus,  botli  Jew 
and  Gentile  constitute  one  new  man.  In  one  word,  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus, 
that  all  things  are  made  new.2 

Every  Man  a  Son  of  God  in  the  Sense  that  Christ  is. 

Murray  taught  that  all  men  are  sous  of  God,  not  because  they 
have  been  born  of  God,  or  have  been  renewed  in  the  spirit  of 
their  minds,  but  because  they  are  all  so  vitally  united  to  the  Son 
of  God  that  they  partake,  in  the  very  essence  of  their  being,  of 
his  diviue  sonship.    He  says  :  — 

The  christian  is  not  to  consider  himself  alone  when  he  addresses  the 
throne  of  grace.  He  is  not  to  say  my  Father,  but,  as  we  have  the  adop- 
tion of  sons  by  Christ  Jesus,  we  should  ever  keep  in  devout  and  grate- 
ful recollections  this  mighty  blessing,  this  mysterious  union,  especially 
when  addressing  the  divine  Nature,  the  Sire  of  angels  and  of  men,  the 
creating  God.  .  .  .  God  doth  not  become  our  Father  consequent  upon 
our  supplications.  Certainly  not;  he  was  our  Father  before  a  single 
cry  of  distress  passed  our  supplicating  lips;  and  why?  because  he  teas 
and  the  Father  of  Christ  Jesus ;  and  as  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ, 
and  the  head  of  Christ  is  God,  so  every  man  is  allowed  to  view  himself 
as  a  member  of  his  glorious  body.  .  .  .  Hence  although  as  descended 
from  the  first  Adam,  we  are  from  beneath,  yet  as  allied  to  the  second 
Adam  we  are  from  above.3 

Man's  Supreme  Need  is  to  "  Know  Christ  as  He  is." 
Murray  eschewed  evangelical  repentance  and  faith.    He  never 
called  on  men  to  repent  of  their  sius  or  to  believe  on  Christ  as 
a  condition  of  their  forgiveness,  justification,  and  salvation  from 
sin  and  eternal  death.    In  his  view  men  are  utterly  powerless  to 

1  Murray's  Letters  and  Sketches,  vol.  i,  p.  255.  2 Ibid.  vol.  iii,  p.  120.  3  Ibid.  vol. 
ili,  pp.  203,  204. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


17 'J 


conform  to  such  requirements.  Moreover,  they  have  already 
repented  in  Christ's  perfect  repentance,  aud  believed  in  Christ's 
perfect  faith,  and  therefore  are  already  forgiven  and  redeemed 
from  sin  and  death.  But  the  great  mass  of  men  do  not  know 
this.  They  do  not  believe  it.  They  are  living  in  utter  ignorance 
and  unbelief  respecting  the  true  gospel  and  the  true  Christ. 
Consequently  Murray  continually  insisted  upon  the  iudispensable- 
ness  of  knowing  Christ,  of  hearing  of  Him,  of  learning  of  Him, 
and  of  being  taught  of  God  respecting  Him.  But  what  is  this 
"knowledge  of  Christ"  which  is  so  indispensable?  It  is  the 
knowledge  of  Him  in  the  constitution  of  his  person,  as  vitally 
united  to  the  human  race  and  to  every  member  of  it,  as  including 
all  men  in  himself.  In  other  words  it  is  the  knowledge  of  Relly- 
anism  that  is  of  such  infinite  moment.  To  know  Christ  as  He  is 
in  the  constitution  of  his  person,  as  including  the  entire  human 
race  in  his  being  —  this  is  the  true  knowledge  of  Christ  without 
which  there  is  no  blessedness.  All  men,  with  or  without  this 
knowledge,  are  redeemed  and  can  no  more  be  lost  than  Christ  can 
be  lost ;  for  they  exist  in  the  very  constitution  of  his  person. 
But  when  tbey  are  ignorant  of  all  this  they  often  live  in  remorse 
and  terror.  What  they  supremely  need,  therefore,  is  not  per- 
sonal sorrow  for  their  sins,  nor  personal  faith,  nor  personal 
righteousness,  but  a  certain  kind  of  knowledge.  When  they  hear 
and  learn  of  their  identity  with  Christ  and  with  God  in  Christ,  and 
knoiu  that  Christ  is  their  life,  that  He  is  so  in  them  and  they  so  in 
Him  that  what  He  is  they  are,  and  what  He  does  they  do,  irrespec- 
tive of  their  own  moral  character  and  lives  —  when  they  know  and 
believe  all  this,  then  they  are  delivered  from  all  their  fears  and 
forebodings  and  are  filled  with  peace  and  the  larger  hope.  Murray 
taught  that  it  is  of  the  utmost  moment  that  men  should  believe;  — 
but  believe  what?  Believe  Rellyanism;  believe  that  all  men  are 
in  Christ,  that  He  is  their  life,  and  that  they  can  no  more  perish 
than  Christ  can  perish,  do  what  they  will.  Believing  this  men  are 
saved  from  all  present  anxiety  and  torment,  whatever  may  be  their 
moral  character  and  lives.  Murray  made  a  distinction  between 
redemption  and  salvation.  All  men  are  redeemed  from  the  death 
eternal  by  their  vital  and  deathless  union  with  Christ.  But  only 
those  are  saved  from  "  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment" 
to  come,  who  have  "  knowledge  of  Christ,"  who  know  him  as  He 


180 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


is,  as  vitally  and  eternally  united  to  every  human  being  and  as 
including  all  men  in  himself.  This  knowledge  does  not  save  from 
sin,  but  only  from  the  fear  of  punishment.  It  was  also  held  by 
Murray,  as  by  Relly  and  the  Andover  progressives,  that  all  men 
will  have  this  saving  knowledge  in  due  time,  if  not  in  this  life,, 
then  in  the  next  life.  In  proof  of  these  statements  we  present' 
a  few  quotations  from  Murray's  writings.    He  says  :  — 

Jesus  Christ  is  now,  and  forever  will  be,  the  life  of  the  world,  which 
divine  truth  will,  in  due  time  be  testified,  for  it  is  written,  They  shall  all 
be  taught  of  God;  and  when  they  are  all  taught  of  God,  they  shall 
know  him ;  and  when  they  know  him.  they  shall  believe  in  him ;  and 
when  they  believe  in  him,  they  shall  be  saved  from  the  misery  which  is 
consequent  upon  unbelief.1 

As  mainr  as  have  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glorious  gospel 
shining  into  their  hearts  are  wise;  they  have  the  knowledge  of  those 
things  which  make  for  their  peace,  and  they  enter  in,  and  find  rest  and 
peace  to  their  souls;  and  as  many  as  have  not  this  light  are  foolish, 
they  know  not  the  things  which  make  for  their  peace,  and  therefore 
cannot  enter  in  either  to  rest  or  peace.  But  it  is  written,  they  shall  be 
all  taught  of  God,  and  they  shall  know  him  from  the  least  of  them  unto 
the  greatest  of  them.2 

Is  the  sinner  miserable,  from  the  knowledge  of  his  unrighteousness, 
when  he  is  told,  the  unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  heaven? 
He  is  saved  from  this  misery  the  moment  he  hears  and  believes  that  the 
name  whereby  the  Redeemer  shall  be  called,  is  "  the  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness.'''' Is  he  convinced  that  without  holiness  no  man  can  see  the  Lord, 
and  that  if  he  regards  iniquity  in  his  heart,  the  Lord  will  not  hear  him? 
Is  his  soul  distressed  in  consequence  thereof?  .  .  .  When  the  gospel  is 
preached  to  him,  assuring  him  that  Jesus  is  made  unto  him  sanctification, 
that  this  great  High  Priest  wears  on  his  head  for  us  holiness  to  the  Lord, 
and  that  we  are  authorized  to  view  that  head,  thus  adorned,  as  our  head, 
hearing  that  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ,  and  the  head  of  Christ  is 
God; — when  these  divine  gospel  truths  are  heard  and  believed,  he  is 
completely  saved  from  condemnation  or  damnation  3 

It  is  a  blessed  thing  to  know  God.  We  are  told  it  is  life  eternal  to 
know  God,  but  certainly  it  is  not  life  eternal  to  know  God,  except  we 
know  God  as  he  is,  the  life  of  the  world.  It  is  a  blessed  thing  to  know 
God  in  this  character,  for  in  knowing  him  to  be  the  life  of  the  world, 
each  individual  of  the  world,  who  thus  knows  him,  knows  him  to  be  his 
life,  and  each  individual  thus  taught  can  say  of  himself,  God  is  my  life, 
and  he  whom  God  gives  by  his  Spirit's  teaching  thus  to  know  him,  is  an 
individual  of  that  little  remnaut,  who  is  saved  in  consequence  of  believing; 


1  Letters  and  Sketches,  vol.  i,  p.  52.      s  Ibid.  vol.  i,  p.  270.     3  Ibid.  vol.  i,  p.  374. 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


181 


but  this  not  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest,  for  when  every  eye  shall  see,  then 
every  heart  will  consequently  believe.1 

Yet  it  is  an  established  truth,  that  every  believer  was  once  an  unbeliever  ; 
every  believer,  then,  was  once  damned,  and  it  was  only  when  he  became 
a  believer,  that  he  was  saved  from  the  countless  agonies,  which  erst  times 
pierced  him  through  with  many  sorrows.  But  he  was  redeemed,  the 
price  was  paid  ere  ever  he  was  called  into  existence.  Thus,  in  his  view, 
redemption  and  salvation  are  distinct  considerations.  The  preacher  un- 
hesitatingly believed,  all  who  learned  of  the  Father  would  come  to  Jesus, 
and  that  all  would  finally  be  taught  of  God.2 

Growth  in  Grace. 
In  harmony  with  his  view  of  the  indispensableness  of  knowing 
Christ,  as  He  is,  in  the  constitution  of  his  person  and  in  his  vital 
relation  to  the  human  race,  Murray  held  that  "  growth  in  grace" 
is  not  advancement  in  personal  holiness  and  goodness,  or  in  per- 
sonal likeness  to  our  Lord,  but  is  growth  in  this  unique  knowledge 
of  Christ.    This  is  indicated  in  the  following  extract :  — 

Ye  are  not,  says  the  apostle,  under  the  law,  but  under  grace.  By  grace 
are  ye  saved;  and,  he  adds,  in  this  grace  ye  stand.  Doubtless,  then,  to 
know  more  and  more  of  this  salvation  is  to  grow  i:i  grace.  We  first  learn 
we  are  saved  from  damnation  due  to  our  past  sins  by  his  death,  and 
immediately  look  for  holiness  iu  ourselves ;  but,  being  in  grace,  we  soon 
grow  strong  enough  to  know  that  He  who  was  our  death,  is  also  our 
life,  by  being  our  holiness.  Thus  by  little  and  little,  we  grow  into  him,  in 
all  things,  until  we  are  enabled  to  believe  that  we  are  wise  in  his  wisdom, 
righteous  in  his  righteousness,  holy  in  his  holiness,  strong  in  his  strength, 
suffering  all  things  in  his  sufferings,  doing  all  things  commanded  in  the 
law,  in  his  doings ;  and  from  hence  we  proceed  to  believe,  that  he  who  is 
our  head,  is  the  head  of  every  man,  that  He,  who  by  the  grace  of  God 
tasted  death  for  us,  by  the  same  grace  tasted  death  for  every  man;  that 
he  who  is  owr  wisdom,  is  every  man's  wisdom ;  that  he  who  is  our  right- 
eousness, is  every  man's  righteousness ;  that  he  who  is  our  sanctification  or 
holiness,  is  every  man's  sanctification  or  holiness;  that  he  who  hath 
accepted  us,  hath  accepted  every  man,  in  the  beloved,  and  that  if  we  have 
a  legal  title  to  that  kingdom,  which  the  unrighteous  cannot  inherit, 
in  consequence  of  our  being  righteous  in  the  Lord  our  righteousness, 
every  man  hath  the  same  title :  and  that  as  he  who  gave  himself  a  ransom 
for  all,  must  be  testified  in  due  time,  every  one  in  due  time  shall  know 
him  as  well  as  we  know  him,  shall  believe  in  him,  and  believing  in  him, 
shall  be  saved  from  all  that  misery,  which  is  consequent  upon  a  disbelief 
of  these  God  honoring,  man  restoring  truths.3 

1  Letters  and  Sketches,  vol.  iii,  p.  322.  2  The  Life  of  John  Murray,  edited  by  Rev. 
L.  S.  Everett,  p.  266.      s  Letters  and  Sketches,  vol.  i,  pp.  9S,  99. 


182 


Hard  Particular  Complaint. 


The  extracts  now  presented  from  the  writings  and  biography 
of  John  Murray  set  forth  explicitly  the  nature  of  his  theological 
beliefs.  In  view  of  these  statements  of  his  theology,  we  offer 
the  following  remarks  :  — 

Rellyanism  is  Universalis!!. 

1.  John  Murray  was  a  Universalist.  He  was  a  Universalist  of 
the  most  pronounced  type.  The  particular  form  of  his  Universal- 
ism  was  that  which  since  the  middle  of  the  last  century  has  been 
known  under  the  name  of  Rellyanism.  It  cannot  be  questioned 
that  he  was  a  thoroughgoing  Rellyan  Universalist.  It  is  true  — 
and  a  pity  it  is  that  it  is  true  —  that,  during  the  early  years  of  his 
preaching  in  this  country,  he  concealed  the  fact  that  he  was  a 
Universalist.  He  went  from  place  to  place,  after  the  manner  of 
an  evangelist  or  missionary,  addressing  the  people  whenever  and 
wherever  an  opportunity  was  given  him  ;  but  usually  he  at  first 
made  the  impression  that  he  was  an  orthodox  preacher,  and  as 
such  he  was  cordially  received  into  the  pulpits  of  many  evangeli- 
cal, orthodox  churches.  He  also  received  his  support  from  ortho- 
dox or  evangelical  Christian  people  ;  some  of  whom  were  ardent 
friends  of  George  Whitefield,  and  at  first  looked  upon  Murray  as 
quite  likely  to  become  a  second  Whitefield.  After  this  manner 
he  preached  for  several  years.  At  last  the  imposition  he  was 
practising  upon  the  people  was  exposed  in  Boston.  He  was  pub- 
licly charged  with  the  sin  of  "hiding,"  as  it  was  termed;  of 
sailing  under  false  colors  ;  of  playing  the  role  of  an  impostor  by 
pretending  to  be  an  orthodox  preacher,  only  somewhat  progress- 
ive, when  in  fact  he  was  a  Rellyan  Universalist.  Great  excite- 
ment followed  the  exposure.  Some  of  the  friends  he  had  made 
in  Boston  stood  by  him.  But  many  of  the  people  denounced  him. 
He  could  not,  however,  refute  the  charge,  and  thenceforth  he  was 
known  as  a  Rellyan  Universalist.  He  became  a  notable  character 
in  the  country,  and  he  is  called  in  history  "  The  Father  of  Uni- 
versalism  in  America."  This  last  fact  is  conclusive  evidence, 
even  if  there  were  no  other,  that  he  was  a  Universalist. 

The  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  had  Knowledge  of 
Murray. 

2.  John  Murray,  as  has  already  been  shown,  was  well  known 
to  the  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary.    Some  of  them  had  been 


Tliird  Particular  Complaint. 


183 


brought  into  unwelcome  acquaintance  with  Rellyanism,  had  made 
a  study  of  it,  and  certainly  were  well  informed  respecting  its 
divisive  and  perversive  influence  in  many  of  the  orthodox  churches 
in  New  England.  The  authors  of  the  Andover  Creed,  we  repeat, 
were  "  Hopkinsians,"  or,  as  they  preferred  to  be  called,  "  Con- 
sistent Calvinists."  Men  belonging  to  this  school  of  theology 
appear  to  have  taken  the  lead  in  opposing  the  Rellyan  Universal- 
ism  of  John  Murray,  believing  it  to  be  antagonistic  to  the 
gospel  of  Christ  and  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men.  In  view 
of  facts  already  given  (pages  160,  161)  it  is  as  certain  as 
almost  any  bistorical  fact  can  be,  that  when  the  authors  of  the 
Andover  Creed,  and  all  the  Founders,  determined  that  every  pro- 
fessor in  their  Seminary  should  be  solemnly  pledged  to  oppose 
Universalism,  they  had  chiefly  in  mind  the  Rellyanism  of  John 
Murray. 

Moreover,  there  can  be  no  question  that,  in  at  least  two  other 
instances,  they  used  language  in  writing  the  Creed  which  was 
designed  to  make  it  forever  impossible  for  any  professor,  if  an 
honest  man,  to  believe  in  and  teach  Rellyanism  in  their  Seminary. 
One  of  these  instances  we  shall  refer  to  later,  the  other  we  desire 
to  notice  now. 

Rellyanism  and  the  Andover  Creed. 

3.  Every  professor  in  Andover  Seminary,  in  taking  the  Creed, 
makes  this  declaration  among  others  :  — 

I  believe,  .  .  .  that  repentance,  faith  and  holiness  are  personal  requi- 
sites in  the  Gospel  scheme  of  salvation. 

"What  is  the  meaning  of  that  word  "  personal"  and  what  was 
the  intent  of  the  Founders  in  placing  it  in  their  Creed,  as  descrip- 
tive of  those  conditions  of  salvation  which  the  gospel  requires 
every  sinful  man  to  fulfil?  This  word  in  such  connection  is  not 
found  in  the  "Westminster  Confession  or  Catechism,  nor  in  any 
other  confession  of  faith,  so  far  as  we  can  learn.  It  is  new  in  the 
Andover  Creed.  How  came  it  there?  The  author  of  that  Creed, 
his  advisers,  and  all  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary,  were  painfully 
aware  that  for  some  thirty-seven  years  it  had  been  loudly  pro- 
claimed far  and  wide  in  New  England,  not  only  that  man  of  him- 


184 


Third  Particular  Complaint. 


self,  or  personally,  cannot  repent,  or  believe,  or  be  holy,  but  also 
that  "  in  Christ,"  "  in  union  with  Christ ,"  in  Christ's  repentance, 
faith,  and  holiness  all  men  can,  and  actually  do,  repent,  believe,  and 
become  holy.  They  knew  to  their  sorrow  that  for  years  Murray 
and  his  followers  had  been  publicly  inculcating  the  delusive  doc- 
trine that  when  Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers  ;  that  when  Christ 
sorrows  in  view  of  human  sins  and  guilt,  the  race  sorrows  ;  that 
when  Christ  repents,  the  race  repents ;  and  that  whatever  Christ 
does,  the  race,  as  included  in  his  person,  does.  This  doctrine  the 
Founders  believed  to  be  false,  deceptive,  and  hazardous  to  the 
souls  of  men.  Consequently  they  determined  that  every  pro- 
fessor in  tbeir  Seminary  should  be  solemnly  pledged  to  hold  and 
teach,  in  absolute  opposition  to  the  Rellyan  error,  that  every  man 
who  would  be.  saved  must  himself  personally  repent,  personally 
believe  on  Christ,  and  be  personally  righteous  ;  that  "  repentance, 
faith,  and  holiness  are  personal  requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of 
salvation,"  in  the  sense  that,  according  to  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
no  man,  who  does  not  personally,  in  himself  and  not  in  another, 
fulfil  these  conditions  of  salvation,  can  ever  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God.  In  other  words,  that  peculiar  phrase,  "personal  requisites" 
was  aimed  directly  at  the  Rellyan  Universalism  of  that  time,  and 
of  our  time,  and  was  designed  to  make  it  forever  impossible  for 
any  honest  man  to  teach  the  pantheistic  doctrine  of  race-repent- 
ance in  Union  with  Christ,  in  Andover  Seminary. 

The  Defendant  Teaching  Rellyanisji  in  Andover  Seminary. 

4.  Now  we  complain  that,  in  spite  of  all  these  strong  barriers, 
so  carefully  erected  by  the  Founders  for  the  special  purpose  of 
keeping  this  universalistic  and  pantheistic  doctrine  of  race-repent- 
ance through  union  with  Christ  forever  out  of  the  Seminary,  the 
defendant,  in  violation  of  his  own  solemn  promise,  and  of  the 
Constitution  and  Statutes  of  this  sacred  Institution,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  known  intent  of  its  Founders,  is  now  maintaining 
and  inculcating,  in  Andover  Seminary,  and  by  means  of  the 
funds  of  the  Founders,  this  same  pestilential  and  corrupting  error 
of  race-repentance  and  race-salvation.  This  is  our  complaint. 
"We  charge  before  the  Board  of  Visitors,  who  have  supreme 
authority  to  remedy  this  grievous  wrong,  that  under  cover  of  this 
new  and  pretentious  name,  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  the  old, 


TJiird  Particular  Complaint. 


185 


defunct,  and  long-buried  error  of  Rellyan  Universalism  has  been 
raised  from  its  grave,  and  in  all  its  offeusiveness  paraded  and 
commended  in  Andover  Seminary  as  a  '■'■new  theology,"  just  dis- 
covered, of  which  the  benighted  Founders  knew  nothing,  and 
which  therefore  may  properly  be  promulgated  from  their  Seminary 
and  by  means  of  their  funds,  in  the  place  of,  and  to  the  utter 
exclusion  of,  the  doctrines  of  personal  evangelical  repentance  and 
faith  which  the  Seminary  was  founded  to  maintain  and  inculcate. 
We  submit  to  the  Visitors,  and  also  to  that  august  tribunal  of 
intelligent,  honest  Christian  people  the  world  over,  that  we  have 
maintained  our  charge.  We  claim  to  have  shown  conclusively, 
by  quotations  from  James  Relly  and  John  Murray  compared  with 
quotations  from  the  writings  of  the  progressive  divines  at  Andover, 
that  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  in  its  "central  and  vital  princi- 
ple," is  identically  the  old  Rellyan  Universalism  so  well  known  to 
the  Founders,  and  is  one  of  the  specified  errors  which  the  Sem- 
inary was  founded  to  oppose. 

Conclusion. 

If  anything  can  be  made  clear,  the  citations  now  presented 
do  make  it  clear  that  Rellyan  Universalism  and  "Progressive 
Orthodoxy  "  alike  maintain  and  teach  that  Christ  is  the  life  of  the 
world  and  of  every  individual  in  it ;  that  all  men  are  united  to 
Christ,  not  of  their  own  volition  or  choice,  but  involuntarily,  and 
in  the  very  constitution  of  their  own  and  of  Christ's  personality  ; 
that  Christ  is  so  in  all  men,  and  all  men  are  so  in  Christ,  that, 
in  some  mystical  yet  real  sense,  they  together  constitute  one 
Man,  one  "  universal  Person,"  and  that,  consequently,  when 
Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers ;  when  Christ  is  sorrowful, 
the  race  is  sorrowful ;  when  Christ  repents,  the  race  repents ; 
whatever  Christ  does,  the  race  does,  and  whatever  Christ  is,  the 
race  is,  in  spite  of  all  its  wickedness. 

As  we  claim,  it  has  been  proved  that  Rellyan  Universalism 
and  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  both,  and  with  equal  earnestness, 
maintain  and  teach  that  this  organic  and  vital  union  of  Christ 
with  all  men  precedes  all  repentance  and  faith  on  the  part  of  men  ; 
that  this  union  itself  is  not  at  all  the  product  of  man's  repentance 
and  faith,  Christian  love,  sympathy,  and  devotion,  but  that  every 
man,  irrespective  of  bis  own  moral  and  religious  character,  is, 


186 


TJiird  Particular  Complaint. 


and  has  been  from  the  first  moment  of  his  existence,  included 
in  the  personality  of  Christ,  and  in  the  very  essence  of  his 
being. 

It  has  been  made  abundantly  evident  that  Rellyan  Univer- 
salism  and  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  are  agreed  in  maintaining 
that  man  of  himself,  or  personally,  cannot  repent,  or  believe  on 
Christ,  or  obey  any  of  the  commands  of  the  gospel ;  that  repent- 
ance, faith,  and  holiness  are  not  personal  requisites  in  the 
gospel  scheme  of  salvation.  These  two  theologies  are  perfectly 
at  one  in  accepting  the  anti-Scriptural  notion  that  the  entire  race 
renders  in  Christ  a  complete  repentance,  so  that  God  sees  in  every 
man,  from  Adam  to  the  last-born  member  of  the  race,  a  penitent 
man,  not  because  each  man  personally  repents  (for  personally  he 
does  not  and  can  not  repent),  but  because  God  sees  Christ  in  every 
man.  It  may  be  said  of  these  two  theologies,  the  one  now  taught 
in  Andover  Seminary  and  that  preached  by  John  Murray  for 
forty  years  in  eastern  Massachusetts,  that  they  both  alike  call  for 
a  most  preposterous  faith.  They  demand  that  we  shall  be  able  to 
believe  in  the  perfect  repentance  of  all  impenitent  sinners,  in  the 
perfect  faith  of  all  unbelieving  souls,  in  the  perfect  righteousness 
of  all  wicked  men,  and  in  the  perfect  divinity  of  all  depraved 
humanity.  They  alike  call  upon  us  to  believe  that  the  supreme 
need  of  fallen  man  is  simply  to  know  Christ  as  he  is  in  the  con- 
stitution of  his  person,  as  including  in  himself  the  entire  human 
race,  and  that  having  that  "  knowledge  of  Christ."  he  will  be  for- 
ever free,  even  in  his  sins,  from  all  remorse  of  conscience  and 
fearful  forebodings  ;  and  also  to  believe  that  every  man,  as  sure 
as  God  is  just,  will  "  sooner  or  later"  have  that  "  knowledge  of 
Christ,"  if  not  in  this  world,  then  in  the  next.  Thus  accordant 
are  these  two  systems  of  belief.  "Rellyan  Universalism "  and 
"  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  are  essentially  one  and  the  same  the- 
ology. Hence  we  claim  to  have  shown  that  the  defendant  is 
maintaining  and  inculcating  in  Andover  Seminary  the  very  Uni- 
versalism which  he  has  solemnly  and  religiously  promised  to 
oppose.  Not  only  has  our  third  particular  charge,  namely,  that 
Professor  Smyth  holds  and  teaches  "that  no  man  has  power  or 
capacity  to  repent,"  been  proved,  but,  iu  proving  this,  it  has  also 
been  shown  that  this  peculiar  doctrine  of  man's  impotence  to  re- 
pent, save  as  he  is  vitally  united  to  Christ,  is  an  essential  part  of, 


Third  Particular  Complaint.  187 

and  carries  with  it,  that  whole  scheme  of  pantheistic  error,  which 
was  well  known  to  the  Founders  under  the  name  of  Rellyan  Uni- 
versalism,  and  against  the  teaching  of  which  they  supposed  they 
had,  by  statute,  forever  protected  their  Seminary. 


V. 


FIFTH   PARTICULAR  COMPLAINT. 

"We  have  now  presented  evidence  and  arguments  in  proof  of 
the  first,  second,  and  third  particular  complaints  under  our  fourth 
general  charge.  For  lack  of  time  we  pass  the  fourth  particular 
complaint  without  argument.  Our  fifth  specific  charge  is,  that 
Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth  maintains  and  inculcates,  contrary  to 
the  declarations  of  the  Creed  and  to  the  Constitution  and  Statutes 
of  the  Seminary,  "that  no  man  can  be  lost  without  having  had 
knowledge  of  Christ." 

In  proof  of  this  charge  we  present  a  concise  statement  from 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  (p.  250),  the  language  of  which  is 
almost  identical  with  that  of  the  charge  itself.  The  statement  is 
this  :  — 

But  we  have  endeavored  to  show  that  no  one  can  be  lost  without  hav- 
ing had  knowledge  of  Christ. 

The  statement  is,  it  should  be  noted,  that  "wo  one,"  that  is,  no 
member  of  the  human  race,  "can  be  lost,"  or  is  in  the  least  pos- 
sible danger  of  being  lost,  "  without  having  had  knowledge  of 
Christ." 

The  Creed  Statement. 

But  in  subscribing  to  the  Creed  of  the  Seminary  this  same  de- 
fendant professor  has  repeatedly  declared,  without  qualification, 
that  he  accepts  the  following  statement  of  faith,  and  has  explic- 
itly promised  that  he  will  maintain  and  inculcate  the  same, 
namely  :  — 

that  by  nature  every  man  is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holi- 
ness, unlike  and  opposed  to  God;  and  that,  previously  to  the  renewing 
agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  all  his  moral  actions  are  adverse  to  the 
character  and  glory  of  God ;  that,  being  morally  incapable  of  recover- 
ing the  image  of  his  Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is 
justly  exposed  to  eternal  damnation;  so  that,  except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  [Italics  ours. J 
188 


Fifth  Particular  Complaint. 


189 


The  substance  of  this  creed-statement  is  this  :  that  every  man 
is  such  in  his  personal,  moral  character  and  actions,  in  his  per- 
sonal relations  to  God,  and  in  his  personal,  moral  incapacity  to 
recover  the  image  of  his  Maker,  that  he  is  justly  exposed  to  eter- 
nal condemnation,  which  certainly  implies  that  he  is  in  imminent 
danger  of  being  forever  lost,  —  "so  that  except  a  man  be  born 
again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  which  also  clearly 
implies  that  he  is  in  danger  of  being  forever  excluded  from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  Defendant  Contradicts  Himself. 

Now  will  the  Board  of  Visitors  please  notice  that  Professor 
Smyth,  in  taking  the  Creed,  explicitly  asserts  that,  in  his  belief, 
every  unregenerate  man  —  every  such  man,  then,  with  or  without 
knowledge  of  Christ  —  is  such  in  his  personal  character  and  rela- 
tion to  God  that  he  is  justly  in  extreme  peril  of  being  lost. 
Moreover,  he  promises  to  teach  that  belief.  But  in  his  actual 
teaching  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  he  asserts  with  equal  ex- 
plicitness  that  as  the  result  of  his  investigations  he  is  compelled 
to  believe  and  to  show  that  no  man,  without  having  had  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,  is  in  the  least  possible  danger  of  being  lost.  Now 
no  professor  can  make  both  of  these  assertions  without  self-stul- 
tification. Each  of  these  beliefs  avowed  by  the  defendant  is  an 
absolute  contradiction  of  the  other. 

An  Astonishing  Statement. 

Again,  this  statement  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  that  "  no 
one  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowledge  of  Christ,"  is  not 
only  repugnant  to  the  Andover  Creed,  but  is  itself  a  most  aston- 
ishing statement.  It  offers  a  bribe  to  men  to  live  and  to  die  in 
ignorance  of  Christ.  If  men  having  no  knowledge  of  Christ 
cannot  be  lost,  it  is  perfectly  safe  for  such  men  to  die  in  their 
sins.  They  are  sinners,  indeed,  but  the  maintenance  of  their 
ignorance  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  the  price  at  which  they  are  in- 
sured against  the  loss  of  their  souls.  If  a  more  monstrous  doc- 
trine than  this  was  ever  taught  professedly  in  the  name  of  Christ 
on  this  globe,  we  have  never  heard  of  it.  Yet  this  doctrine  is 
now  taught  on  Andover  Hill,  and  from  that  once  sacred  height  is 
proclaimed  to  the  world. 


190 


Fifth  Particular  Complaint. 


The  Reply  of  the  Defendant. 

What  has  Professor  Smyth  to  say  in  refutation  of  this  fifth 
charge?  Nest  to  nothing.  His  first  answer  to  the  charge  con- 
tained only  three  sentences,  and  in  his  long  and  elaborate  defence 
made  at  his  public  trial  before  the  Visitors,  upon  reaching  this 
fifth  charge,  he  simply  referred  to  his  first  answer.  We  do  not 
blame  the  professor  for  feeling  —  to  use  an  Hibernianism  —  that 
such  a  charge,  sustained  by  such  evidence  of  its  truth,  is  best 
handled  by  not  touching  it.  Still,  such  a  quick  dropping  of  a 
charge  so  momentous  and  crushing  awakens  the  suspicion  that, 
in  the  defendant's  view,  it  cannot  be  refuted.  His  answer  of 
three  sentences  is  as  follows  :  — 

I  repeat  that  I  hold  that  all  men  being  sinners  are  lost  without  Christ. 
The  language  cited  refers  to  what  we  may  infer  from  our  knowledge  of 
the  revelation  which  God  has  made  of  himself  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Re- 
deemer of  mankind.  I  deny  that  the  citations  when  interpreted  by  the 
context  and  the  book  teach  any  thing  contrary  to  the  Creed  and  Statutes 
of  the  Seminary. 

Such  is  the  only  answer  that  has  been  made  in  refutation  of 
one  of  the  gravest  charges  that  could  be  brought  against  a  Chris- 
tian professor  pledged  to  teach  evangelical  faith.  In  the  first 
sentence  of  this  answer  the  defendant  says:  "I  hold  that  all 
men,  being  sinners,  are  lost  without  Christ."  But  what  does  he 
mean  by  the  phrase  "without  Christ"?  Does  he  mean  without 
Christ  in  existence?  Is  his  statement  this,  that  all  men,  being 
Burners,  are  lost  if  there  be  no  Saviour?  If  so,  the  statement  is 
quite  obviously  true,  but  is  not  at  all  pertinent  as  a  reply  to  the 
fifth  charge,  or  as  an  explanation  of  his  own  declaration,  that 
"no  one  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowledge  of  Christ." 
Indeed,  it  makes  that  declaration  absolutely  needless  and  absurd. 

The  third  sentence  in  the  professor's  answer  is  simply  a  denial 
that  the  citations  made  by  the  complainants,  "when  interpreted 
by  the  context  and  the  book,  teach  any  thing  contrary  to  the 
Creed  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary."  But  if  the  astounding 
declaration  that  "  no  one  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowl- 
edge of  Christ "  can  possibly  be  so  interpreted  by  the  context,  or 
by  the  book,  or  in  any  other  way,  as  to  show  that  it  is  not  in 
absolute  antagonism  to  that  part  of  the  Creed  which  we  have 


Fifth  Particular  Complaint. 


191 


quoted,  why  did  not  the  professor  give  that  interpretation,  and 
so  explain  and  justify,  to  the  dismay  of  the  complainants,  his 
seemingly  monstrous  statement?  In  the  circumstances,  the  fact 
that  he  did  not  give  any  such  interpretation  awakens  the  convic- 
tion that  he  could  not  do  it. 

A  Declaration  without  Meaning. 

In  the  second  sentence  of  the  professor's  brief  answer,  he  says, 
referring  to  the  complainant's  citations  from  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  :  — 

The  language  cited  refers  to  what  we  may  infer  from  our  knowledge 
of  the  revelation  which  God  has  made  of  himself  in  Jesus  Christ  the 
Redeemer  of  mankind. 

This  is  a  high-sounding  sentence.  On  the  face  of  it,  it  gives  evi- 
dence of  being  the  result  of  a  desperate  struggle  of  the  writer  to 
appear  to  be  saying  something  vast  and  deep,  while  saying 
nothing.  He  represents  that  "the  language  cited "  from  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy  "  is  a  reference  to  an  inference,  which  we  may 
draw  from  some  sort  of  knowledge  of  our  own  respecting  some 
hind  of  a  revelation  "  which  God  has  made  of  himself  in  Jesus 
Christ  the  Redeemer  of  mankind."  But  what  does  a  progressive 
divine  mean  by  the  phrase  "Redeemer  of  mankind"?  What 
"revelation"  does  he  refer  to?  God  has  made  many  revelations 
of  himself  in  Jesus  Christ ;  but  what  is  "  the  revelation"  of  him- 
self to  which  the  professor  refers?  What  is  "our  knowledge" 
of  that  undesignated  revelation  ?  What  is  the  inference  which  we 
may  draw  from  an  undefined  knowledge  of  an  undesignated  reve- 
lation ?  What  is  the  purpose  and  the  value  of  a  reference  to  an 
unknown  inference,  which  we  may  draw  from  an  undefined  knowl- 
edge of  some  undesignated  revelation  which  God  has  made  of 
himself  in  Jesus  Christ?  Until  answers  to  these  questions  are 
given  or  guessed,  that  high-sounding  sentence  which  we  have 
quoted  conveys  no  intelligible  idea  to  even  the  most  intelligent 
minds. 

We  as  complainants  wish  to  be  perfectly  just  in  our  dealings 
with  these  progressive  professors.  If  the  Board  of  Visitors,  in 
fidelity  to  the  great  financial  and  religious  trust  which  they  are 
bound  to  protect,  shall  be  obliged  to  inflict  any  penalty  upon 


192 


Fifth  Particular  Complaint. 


these  professors,  we  would  have  them  err,  if  err  they  must,  on 
the  side  of  patience  and  leniency.  We  would  at  least  have  the 
severity  of  the  punishmeut  carefully  adjusted  to  the  magnitude 
of  the  offence.  But  we  say  deliberately,  that  when  any  professor 
in  Andover  Seminary  is  found  capable  of  committing  the  crime 
of  writing  such  a  sentence  as  this  second  sentence  upon  which  we 
are  commenting,  he  should  forthwith  be  removed  from  office  in 
accordance  with  the  imperative  Associate  Statute  (Art.  XX)  for 
such  cases  made  and  provided,  which  requires  that  the  Visitors 
shall 

take  care  that  the  duties  of  every  Professor  on  this  Foundation  be 
intelligibly  .  .  .  discharged. 

"Knowledge  of  Christ"  a  Mystical  Phrase. 

Returning  now  to  the  assertion  of  the  defendent,  that  "  no  one 
can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowledge  of  Christ,"  and 
remembering  its  inevitable  implication,  that  it  is  safe  for  all  men, 
ivho  have  had  no  knowledge  of  Christ,  to  die  in  their  sins,  we 
raise  again  the  question,  What  is  meant  by  the  phrase,  "having 
knowledge  of  Christ"?  This  phrase  is  very  familiar  to  all  readers 
of  the  writings  of  James  Rclly  and  John  Murray,  and  of  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy."  It  appears,  on  the  face  of  it,  to  be  a  very 
simple  and  innocent  phrase.  It  gives  no  suggestion  of  the  use 
which  is  made  of  it  by  pantheistic  or  Rellyan  Universalists. 
Still  no  one  who  has  even  a  casual  acquaintance  witli  the  writings 
of  that  class  of  progressives,  who  are  progressing  backward 
toward  old  pagan  beliefs  and  philosophies,  can  possibly  mistake 
the  unusual  and  covert  meaning  which  such  progressives  attach 
to  this  familiar  clause.  They  mean  by  the  phrase  "  having 
knowledge  of  Christ,"  having,  not  a  general  knowledge  of  Him 
as  He  is  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  nor  having  that  saving  knowl- 
edge of  Him  which  comes  through  the  revelation  of  Hiin  to  the 
soul  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  through  a  grateful  trust  in  Him  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  but  a  certain  special  and  peculiar  knowledge 
of  Him,  which  they  sometimes  vaguely  define  by  the  words  "  a 
knowledge  of  Him  as  He  is" ;  that  is,  a  knowledge  of  Him  as  He 
is  in  the  constitution  of  his  being,  in  his  organic  and  vital  union 
with  the  entire  human  race,  and  in  his  oneness  with  the  entire 
world  or  universe  which  contains  the  human  race.    It  is  especially 


Fifth  Particular  Complaint. 


193 


a  knowledge  of  Him  as  including  in  bis  person  all  men,  the  wicked 
and  the  righteous,  the  living  and  the  dead,  and  all  who  are  yet  to 
be  born. 

If  we  now  keep  in  mind  this  meaning  of  the  clause,  "  having 
knowledge  of  Christ,"  the  dark  saying  of  the  defendant,  that 
"  no  one  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowledge  of  Christ," 
becomes  luminous.  If  Christ  is  an  essential  part  of  every  man's 
being,  and  if  every  man  is  an  essential  part  of  Christ's  very  per- 
son, no  man  can  be  lost  —  it  is  not  possible  that  any  man  will 
be  lost  —  before  he  has  knowledge  of  Christ  as  a  constituent  part 
of  his  own  being.  That  knowledge  is  his  supreme  need.  God 
will  see  that  he  has  it.  Every  man  will  have  this  knowledge  "  in 
due  time,"  if  not  in  this  life,  then  in  the  next.  There  is  not  the 
least  danger  that  any  man  will  be  lost  without  this  knowledge, 
because,  as  every  man  is  a  part  of  the  divine  essence,  and  there- 
fore imperishable,  no  man  can  be  lost  in  any  event,  and  God  will 
see  that  every  man  for  his  own  comfort  6hall  know  this.  As 
Relly  and  Murray  used  to  6ay,  perverting  Scripture :  — 

All  thy  children  shall  be  taught  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  They  shall  all  know 
me,  .  .  .  saith  the  Lord ; 

that  is,  know  the  Lord  as  a  constituent  part  of  themselves. 
And  then  great  will  be  their  peace,  for  in  this  knowledge  of  the 
Lord  they  will  have  an  assurance  that,  irrespective  of  their  char- 
acter as  sinful  or  holy,  they  never  can  be  lost,  any  more  than  the 
Lord  Jesus  can  be  lost,  for  of  his  person  they  are  a  constituent 
part.  When  a  man  knows  Christ  as  He  is  in  the  constitution  of 
his  person,  or  as  including  in  his  person  all  men,  he  is  at  onoe 
convinced  that  he  is  in  no  danger  of  being  lost.  It  would  be 
greatly  to  his  comfort  to  have  this  knowledge  in  this  life,  for  then 
he  would  be  troubled  with  no  dread  forebodings.  But  if  he  does 
not  have  this  knowledge  in  the  present  world,  he  is  sure  to  have 
it  in  the  next  world,  for  no  man  can  be  lost  without  having  had 
knowledge  of  Christ. 

Safe  fob  Men  to  Die  in  Their  Sins. 

According  to  this  interpretation  of  the  professor's  strange 
statement,  he  is  simply  stating  what  he  believes  will  become  fact. 
He  is  uttering  a  prophecy,  namely,  that  no  man  will  be  lost  before 


194 


Fifth  Particular  Complaint. 


he  knows  the  fact  of  his  own  vital  and  indestructible  union  with 
Jesus  Christ;  and  every  man,  knowing  that  marvelous  fact,  will 
also  know  that  he  is  not,  never  has  been,  and  never  will  be,  in 
the  least  possible  danger  of  being  lost.  This  interpretation, 
which  we  believe  to  be  the  true  one,  does  not  make  the  defendant's 
statement  le^s,  but  rather  more,  "  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men." 
For  if  he  teaches  that  every  man  is  certainly  to  know  —  to  know 
in  knowing  Christ  as  He  is,  to  know  in  due  time,  in  this  life  or  in 
the  next  —  that  tbere  is  not,  never  has  been,  and  never  will  be,  the 
least  possible  danger  that  he,  or  any  other  man,  will  be  lost,  he 
surely  does  teach  that  it  is  perfectly  safe,  not  for  some  men 
merely,  but  for  all  men,  not  only  to  die  in  their  sins,  but  also  to 
live  on  through  all  eternity  in  their  sins  ;  inasmuch  as  they  are  all 
organically,  vitally,  and  inseparably  united  to  the  Lord  of  glory 
who  can  never  perish. 

Timidity  of  the  Andover  Progressives. 

This  unscriptural  doctrine,  which  is  itself  the  very  root  and 
essence  of  the  whole  system  of  pantheistic  Universalism,  James 
Relly  and  John  Murray,  as  we  have  shown,  preached  with  a  vigor, 
fulness,  and  freedom  which  do  not  yet  characterize  the  preaching 
and  teaching  of  the  progressive  divines  at  Andover.  The  latter 
by  implication  do  teach  this  doctrine  —  they  teach  it  in  teaching 
that  all  men  are  organically  and  vitally  united  to  Christ  Jesus. 
But  they  teach  it  timidly  and  haltingly,  using  much  blind  and 
enigmatical  language.  It  has  been  their  policy  to  "let  out  their 
new  theology  little  by  little."  The  reason  of  this  is  perfectly 
obvious  to  all  who  know  anything  of  the  theological  revolution 
which  has  been  inaugurated  at  Andover.  Relly  and  Murray  were 
unschooled  men,  but  usually  they  had  the  courage  of  their  convic- 
tions, and  having  accepted  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  vital 
union  and  real  identity  of  all  men  with  Christ,  they  reasoned  from 
it  with  a  resistless  logic,  and  manfully  accepted  and  preached  all 
its  legitimate  implications.  The  progressives  at  Andover  have 
made  public  announcement  that  they  have  unalterably  committed 
themselves  to  the  germinaut  principle  of  Rellyanism  (though 
never  designating  it  by  that  name),  and  they  propose  to  "  follow 
its  guidance  faithfully  and  loyally,"  and  whithersoever  it  may  lead. 
But  they  have  not  the  courage  of  their  convictions.    They  do  not 


Fifth  Particular  Complaint. 


195 


follow  fearlessly  their  guiding  principle,  nor  do  they  allow  any 
bold  and  vigorous  logic  to  carry  them  whither  it  will.  They  back 
and  fill.  They  start  swiftly  out  upon  a  course,  but  quickly  return 
upon  it.  Their  action  is  that  of  men  who  are  tethered.  Their 
tether  is  not  long  and  they  have  been  struggling  with  but  poor 
success  to  lengthen  it.  If  they  had  the  vigor  and  manliness  to 
break  their  tether  and  separate  themselves  entirely  from  the  Semi- 
nary and  the  funds  which  they  are  now  perverting,  and  could 
they  attain  the  courage  of  their  convictions,  and  reason  with  a 
bold,  scholarly,  and  manly  logic,  they  could  and  would  soon  be 
openly  preaching  and  honestly  teaching  pantheistic  Universalism 
with  all  the  fulness,  clearness,  and  freedom  with  which  Relly  and 
Murray  preached  it.  But  so  long  as  they  remain  tethered  by  a 
promise  which  they  can  rightfully  withdraw,  and  by  a  contract 
which  they  are  free  to  surrender  at  any  moment,  they  will  con- 
tinue to  make  the  sorry  spectacle  of  themselves  which  they  are 
now  making  in  promising  to  teach  one  theology  and  yet  timidly 
and  haltingly  teaching  an  opposing  theology. 

Moral  and  Religious  Results. 

If  permitted  to  do  so,  these  professors  will  doubtless  in  the 
future  maintain  and  inculcate,  as  they  are  now  doing,  the  germi- 
nant  and  dominating  principle  of  Rellyanism  with  a  few  of  its 
implications,  while  leaving  the  more  extreme  and  inevitable  de- 
velopment of  them  in  charge  of  their  students.  What  that  inevi- 
table development  in  morals  and  in  faith  will  be  is  not  doubtful. 
In  morals  it  will  be  what  it  has  been  in  the  past,  and  what  any 
one  acquainted  with  human  nature  might  expect  would  come  from 
teaching,  that  it  is  safe  for  at  least  some  men  to  die  in  their  sins. 
In  religious  faith  the  development  can  hardly  fail  to  be  in  the 
near  future,  what  may  have  already  occurred  in  individual  cases, 
an  utter  abandonment  of  all  evangelical  faith,  and  ultimately  of 
all  belief  in  a  personal  God,  or  in  any  supreme  Being  other  than 
that  of  the  old  pagan  pantheists  of  Greece  and  India.  As  to 
the  morality  of  the  personal  act  of  teaching  such  principles  in 
Andover  Seminary,  the  visitors  and  the  world  will  judge.  The 
influence  of  an  example  like  this  upon  students  cannot  fail  to  be 
more  or  less  disastrous.  Some  pupils,  having  accepted  such 
views,  may  have  enough  conscience  and  honesty  left  to  pay  back 


196 


Fifth  Particular  Comjilaint. 


all  funds  which  they  have  received  in  charity  from  orthodox 
sources,  and  openly  and  promptly  connect  themselves  with  Uni- 
versalist  or  Unitarian  churches,  or  perhaps  abandon  their  purpose 
to  enter  the  Christian  ministry.  Others,  however,  will  doubtless 
follow  the  example  of  their  teachers,  and  continue  to  receive  sup- 
port from  orthodox  people  and  institutions,  while  they  hold  and 
teach  unorthodox  and  pantheistic  beliefs.  People  of  ordinary 
discernment  must  see  that  all  these  results  in  a  greater  or  less  de- 
gree are  sure  and  imminent.  Indeed,  even  now  the  moral  devel- 
opment is  not  tarrying.  The  religious  development,  also,  in  the 
confessed  beliefs  and  in  the  preaching  of  students,  is  already 
ominous.  In  the  meantime  the  excited  and  impatient  religious 
public  must  be  content  to  listen  wonderingly  to  many  a  blind 
hint  and  dark  saying  like  that  sonorous,  but  enigmatical  sentence 
of  the  defendant  to  which,  as  an  example,  we  have  called  special 
attention. 


VI. 


SIXTH  PARTICULAR  COMPLAINT. 

Our  sixth  particular  complaint  is,  that  Professor  Smyth  holds, 
maintains,  and  inculcates,  in  opposition  to  the  Creed  and  the 
Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  That  the  atonement  of  Christ  consists 
essentially  and  chiefly  in  his  becoming  identified  with  the  human 
race  through  his  Incarnation,  in  order  that,  by  his  union  with  men 
He  might  endow  them  with  power  to  repent,  and  thus  impart  to  them 
an  augmented  value  in  the  view  of  God,  and  so  render  God  propi- 
tious towards  them. 

The  evidence  and  arguments  by  which  this  charge  was  sup- 
ported at  the  first  trial  of  the  defendant  are  in  print,  and  are 
before  your  honorable  Board.  May  we  ask  your  careful  consider- 
ation of  them,  and  especially  of  the  citations  from  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  "  ?  The  latter  will  show  better  than  any  words  of  ours 
can,  how,  in  this  progressive  theology,  all  conceptions  of  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ  are  colored,  modified,  and  controlled  by  the  panthe- 
istic notion  of  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  the  entire  human 
race  with  Christ. 

"  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  says  :  — 

The  substitution  is  not  of  Christ  standing  on  this  side  for  the  race 
standing  on  that  side,  but  the  race  with  Christ  in  it  is  substituted  for  the 
race  without  Christ  in  it.  This  Christ  in  with  the  race  is  regarded  by 
God  as  one  who  has  those  powers  of  instruction,  sympathy,  purity 
which  can  be  imparted  to  his  brethren.  Likewise  the  individual  in 
Christ  takes  the  place  of  the  individual  without  Christ,  is  looked  on  as 
one  whom  Christ  can  bring  to  repentance  and  obedience,  and  so  is  justi- 
fied even  before  faith  develops  into  character.  .  .  . 

The  race  is  reconstituted  in  Christ,  and  is  other  in  the  sight  of  God, 
because  different  in  fact,  because  containing  powers  for  repentance  and 
holiness  which,  without  Christ,  it  would  be  hopelessly  destitute  of.' 

The  New  Theory  of  Atonement. 
Such  is  the  atonement  according  to  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy." 
This  theory  allows  of  no  substitution  of  Christ  alone  for  the  race 


1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  56. 


198 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


alone,  but  only  a  substitution  of  an  alleged  union  of  Christ  with 
the  race  for  the  non-union  of  Christ  with  the  race.  Christ  did 
not  take  the  place  of  a  sinning,  guilty,  condemned,  and  lost  race, 
and  suffer  and  die  in  its  stead,  but  a  certain  mysterious,  organic, 
and  vital  union  of  Christ  with  the  race  —  a  union  nowhere  men- 
tioned, still  less  described,  in  the  Scriptures — takes  the  place  of 
Christ  himself  and  the  race  not  vitally  united  the  one  with  the 
other.  God  looks  favorably  upon  both  Christ  and  the  race  thus 
united,  in  other  words  is  propitiated,  not  on  the  ground  that 
Christ  has  suffered  and  died  in  the  place  of  a  guilty  and  con- 
demned race,  but  on  the  ground  that  Christ  has  "powers  of 
instruction,  sympathy,  purity  which  can  be  imparted  to  his 
brethren,"  that  is,  to  all  members  of  the  human  race.  "What 
these  powers  of  instruction,  sympathy,  purity  are,  that  they  can 
be  imparted  to,  or  poured  into  all  men,  from  Adam  to  the 
last  member  of  the  race,  through  the  channel  of  their  vital 
union  with  Christ,  without  and  previous  to  any  repentance  or 
faith  on  their  own  part,  and  why  all  members  of  the  race,  as 
they  are  all  thus  united  to  Christ,  do  not  give  full  and  grand 
exhibitions  of  these  Christ-given  and  Christlike  powers  of  in- 
struction, sympathy,  and  purity,  we  are  not  told.  This  silence  is 
remarkable. 

We  are  further  instructed,  that  "  the  individual  in  Christ,"  — 
that  is,  every  human  being  who  ever  has  lived,  or  ever  will  live, 
—  as  he  "takes  the  place  of  the  individual  without  Christ,"  is 
regarded  by  God  "  as  one  whom  Christ  can  bring  to  repentance 
and  obedience,  and  so  is  justified  even  before  faith  develops  into 
character."  But  if  Christ  is  united  to  every  individual  member 
■of  the  race,  and  in  that  union  can  bring  every  individual  to  re- 
pentance, faith,  and  obedience,  then  surely  Christ  is  to  blame  if 
every  member  of  the  race  is  not  penitent,  believing,  and  obedient, 
and  is  not  justified  and  saved.  In  other  words,  if  this  theory  of 
the  atonement  be  true,  Christ  himself  can  be  justified  only  by  the 
universal  righteousness  and  salvation  of  men.  If  Christ  exists 
in  such  a  personal,  vital,  and  power-imparting  relation  to  every 
man,  then  every  man  ought  to  be  at  this  moment,  and  from  his 
birth,  and  forever,  a  righteous,  justified,  and  saved  man.  If  every 
man  is  not  a  saint,  then  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  by  fair  impli- 
cation, defames  our  Lord. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


199 


This  theory  of  the  atoning  union  of  Christ  with  all  men  is 
finally  set  forth  in  these  words  :  — 

The  Race  in  Christ  on  the  Cross. 

In  the  atonement  Christ  the  Son  of  man  brings  all  humanity  to  God. 
No  member  of  the  race  is  separate  from  him  who  thus  offers  himself.1 

But  if  Christ  briugs  all  humanity  to  God,  how  can  any  part  of 
humanity  be  lost?  What  can  be  meant  by  bringing  all  men  to 
God,  if  it  be  not  meant  that  all  men  are  brought  into  eternal 
peace  with  God?  If  no  member  of  the  human  race  was  separate 
from  Christ  when  He  offered  himself  up  in  atonement,  then  every 
man  was  with  Christ  and  in  Him  when  He  suffered  upon  the 
cross  ;  and  with  and  in  Him  took  part  in  making  a  complete  and 
acceptable  atonement  for  his  own  sins.  Indeed,  these  progressive 
divines  affirm  that :  — 

When  Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers.  When  Christ  is  sorrowful,  the 
race  is  sorrowful.2 

Universalism. 

But  if  all  men  have  sorrowed  in  Christ's  great  sorrow  for  the 
sins  of  the  world,  they  have  offered  to  God,  according  to  this 
theory  of  atonement,  a  perfect  repentance.  And  when  all  men 
have  offered  to  God  a  perfect  repentance  in  Christ's  sorrows,  and, 
having  been  with  and  in  Christ  on  the  cross,  have  made  a  full 
and  acceptable  atonement  for  their  own  sins,  how  can  any  man  be 
lost?  Thus  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  as  set  forth  in  its  doc- 
trines of  repentance  and  atonement,  is  thoroughgoing  Univer- 
salism, which  is  one  of  the  specified  errors  that  the  defendant 
has  repeatedly  promised  to  oppose. 

The  "  Central  and  Vital  Principle." 

Yet  the  defendant  may  claim  that  he  can  turn  over  the  leaves 
of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  quote  here  and  there  a  passage 
which  contradicts  this  theory  of  the  atonement.  But  what  of  it? 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  abounds  in  inconsistencies  and  self- 
contradictions.  We  do  not  admit,  however,  that,  from  the  book 
as  a  whole,  it  can  be  proved  that  we  are  mistaken  in  our  charge 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  66.      JIbii.  p.  53. 


200 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


that  its  doctrine  of  atonement  is  rank  Universalism.  But  if  the 
professor  can  quote  isolated  passages,  which  plainly  contradict 
those  which  we  have  cited,  we  reply  with  the  question,  "What  if 
he  can?  He  only  proves  that  he  and  his  progressive  associates 
are  holding  and  teaching  two  conflicting  theories  of  the  atone- 
ment. The  question  then  will  be,  Which  of  these  two  discordant 
theories  do  they  intend  to  accept,  maintain,  and  inculcate?  It  is 
certainly  fair  to  accept  their  own  answer  to  this  question.  They 
have  already  given  us  their  answer  in  unmistakable  language. 
In  the  Introduction  to  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  pp.  3,  4,  they 
inform  us  that  then*  decision  is  made  beyond  recall ;  that  in  writ- 
ing this  book  they  have  been  "under  the  guidance  of  a  central 
and  vital  principle  of  Christianity,  namely,  the  reality  of  Christ's 
personal  relation  to  the  human  race  as  a  whole,  and  to  every 
member  of  it,"  which  central  and  vital  principle  further  on  in 
the  book  proves  to  be  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  Christ  with 
every  member  of  the  human  race.  To  the  maintenance  of  this 
principle  they  have  once  for  all  committed  themselves.  In  proof 
of  the  truth  of  this  speculation,  which  they  have  made  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  their  whole  system,  or  rather  jumble,  of  theo- 
logical beliefs,  they  have  not  given  one  particle  of  evidence. 
They  do,  indeed,  dogmatically  assert  that  their  speculative  notion 
of  the  vital  union  of  Christ  with  the  race  is  "  a  central  and 
vital  principle  of  Christianity  "  ;  but  dogmatism  is  not  evidence. 
They  also  dogmatically  assert  that  "this  principle,"  as  they  call 
it,  "  is  involved  in  the  church  doctrine  of  the  constitution  of 
Christ's  person,"  and  that  "  it  is  a  necessary  implication  of  our 
fathers'  faitli  in  the  extent  and  intent  of  the  Atonement."  But 
again  we  reply,  that  dogmatic  assertion  is  not  evidence.  These 
progressive  divines  also  assert  that  this  pantheistic  principle,  as 
we  call  it,  of  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  the  entire  human 
race  with  Christ  our  Lord  "  is  an  indisputable  teaching  of 
Scripture  "  ;  but  they  do  not  cite  a  single  passage  of  Scripture  in 
proof  of  this  astounding  statement.  It  behooved  them,  at  the 
very  opening  of  their  book,  to  establish  beyond  all  question  the 
truth  of  this  vital  and  all-pervading  principle  of  their  "  new  the- 
ology," unless  they  were  willing  that  their  book  should  be  a  laugh- 
ing-stock in  the  world  of  scholars.  But  they  did  nothing  of  the 
kind.    On  the  contrary,  at  the  opening  of  their  volume,  referring 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


201 


to  this  mere  speculation,  the  truth  of  which  they  had  not  estab- 
lished by  the  least  particle  of  evidence,  they  uublushingly  declare  : 

We  have  sought  to  apply  this  principle  to  the  solution  of  questions 
which  are  now  more  than  ever  before  engaging  the  attention  of  serious 
and  devout  minds.  We  have  endeavored  to  follow  its  guidance  faith- 
fully and  loyally,  and  whithersoever  it  might  lead.  We  have  trusted  it 
wholly  and  practically.1 

Now  this  language  of  the  defendant  and  of  his  progressive 
associates  —  whatever  we  may  think  of  the  morality  or  the  scholar- 
ship manifested  in  committing  themselves  wholly  and  irrevocably 
to  the  guidance  of  an  utterly  unestablished  principle  —  shows  that 
they  have  thus  committed  themselves  to  the  acceptance,  main- 
tenance, and  inculcation  of  an  unproved  dogmatic  principle,  under 
the  guidance  of  which  they  are  compelled  to  hold  and  teach  a 
theory  of  the  atonement  which  is  itself  outright  Universalism. 
The  more  passages  they  can  find  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
which  contradict  this  theory,  the  worse  for  them.  They  will  thus 
simply  show  that  for  some  reason  they  are  not  able  to  stand  faith- 
fully and  loyally  by  their  own  avowed  '■'•principle."  It  is  right  for 
us,  however,  to  hold  them  responsible  for  the  fundamental  and 
dominating  "principle"  which  they  last  avowed,  and  for  all 
doctrines  which  they  themselves  have  deduced  from  it,  whether 
they  have  contradicted  that  principle  or  not.  If,  however,  they 
have  contradicted  their  own  avowed,  fundamental,  and  guiding 
principle,  it  is  an  ominous  reflection  upon  their  scholarship,  or  if 
not  upon  that,  then  upon  their  courage. 

We  have  already  shown  conclusively,  we  submit  to  the  Board 
of  Visitors,  that  the  defendant  is  holding  and  teaching,  not  only 
a  monstrous  and  unproved  theory  of  atonement,  but  also  a  theory 
which  is  itself  with  its  unavoidable  implications  real  Universal- 
ism. To  teach  that  all  members  of  the  human  race  are  in  such 
vital  and  indestructible  union  with  Christ,  that  they  were  all — 
from  Adam  to  the  last  man  who  shall  ever  be  born — with  and  in 
Him  when  He  hung  upon  the  cross,  and  thus  actually  made  full 
and  adequate  atonement  for  all  their  own  sins  —  to  teach  this 
monstrous  notion  is  to  teach  absolute  Universalism.  But  the 
teaching  of  Universalism  is  most  clearly  and  emphatically  for- 
bidden by  the  Statutes  of  the  Seminary. 
1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  3. 


202 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


We  might  here  close  our  argument  in  proof  of  our  sixth  partic- 
ular charge.  But  the  defendant  in  the  first  exceedingly  brief 
reply  which  he  made  to  this  grave  charge,  referring  to  our  cita- 
tions, and  to  the  Article  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  from  which 
they  were  made,  said  :  — 

I  deny  that  the  citations  or  the  Article  contain,  either  by  negation  or 
affirmation,  any  thing  contrary  to  the  Creed  or  the  Statutes. 

We  cannot  allow  this  categorical  denial  to  pass  unnoticed. 

We  propose,  therefore,  to  present  in  the  next  place,  in  contrast 
with  the  theory  of  atonement  defended  in  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy," that  doctrine  of  the  atonement  which  the  Statutes  of  the 
Seminary  require  should  be  taught  on  the  Andover  Foundations. 

The  Doctrine  of  Atonement  Required  by  Statute. 

Every  professor  in  Andover  Seminary,  in  taking  the  Creed,  has 
made  this  confession  of  faith  respecting  the  atonement :  — 

I  believe,  .  .  .  that  God,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  that  he  entered  into  a  covenant  of 
grace,  to  deliver  them  out  of  this  state  of  misery  by  a  Redeemer;  that 
the  only  Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  who  for  this 
purpose  became  man,  and  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person  forever ;  that  Christ,  as  our  Redeemer,  executeth 
the  office  of  Prophet,  Priest  and  King;  that,  agreeably  to  the  covenant 
of  redemption,  the  Son  of  God,  and  he  alone,  by  his  sufterings  and  death, 
has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men ;  that  repentance,  faith  and 
holiness  are  the  personal  requisites  in  the  Gospel  scheme  of  salvation; 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justifi- 
cation, that  this  righteousness  is  received  through  faith ;  and  that  this 
faith  is  the  gift  of  God ;  so  that  our  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace. 

This  passage,  quoted  from  the  Seminary  Creed,  contains  a 
statement  of  that  doctrine  of  atonement  which  every  professor  in 
Andover  Seminary  has  promised,  over  his  own  signature,  and  on 
his  honor  as  a  gentleman  and  a  Christian,  to  "  maintain  and 
inculcate."  The  Creed  is  a  Statute  of  the  Seminary.  It  is 
Article  I  of  the  "Additional  Statutes,"  so  called.  It  is  also  con- 
tained in  Article  II  of  "The  Statutes  of  The  Associate  Founda- 
tion in  The  Theological  Institution  in  Andover."  But  the  Creed  is 
not  the  whole  of  this  Article  II.  The  same  Article  contains  also 
this  positive  requirement :  — 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


203 


Every  Professor  on  the  Associate  Foundation  .  .  .  shall  sustain  the 
character  of  a  discreet,  honest,  learned  and  devout  Christian ;  an  ortho- 
dox and  consistent  Calvinist. 

The  defendant,  Professor  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  is  on  the  "  Asso- 
ciate Foundation." 

What  now  are  the  contents  of  that  doctrine  of  Atonement 
which  every  professor  in  Andover  Seminary  is  under  the  most 
imperative  obligations  to  maintain  and  inculcate  (so  far  as  may 
appertain  to  his  office),  and  which  he  cannot  even  fail  to  maintain 
and  inculcate  (so  far  as  may  appertain  to  his  office)  —  to  say 
nothing  of  his  contradicting  and  opposing  it  —  without  breaking 
his  own  promise  made  voluntarily,  and  with  prayer  to  God  for  his 
aid  and  blessing,  and  thus  forfeiting  the  character  of  an  "  honest 
Christian"  and  of  "an  orthodox,  consistent  Calvinist"? 

Moreover,  what,  in  contrast  with  this  Andover  doctrine  of 
Atonement,  are  the  contents  of  that  theory  of  Atonement  which 
is  set  forth  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  which  is  now  held 
and  taught  by  the  defendant  and  his  progressive  associates  on 
the  Andover  Foundations? 

The  Creed-Doctrine,  and  the  New  Theory  of  Atonement, 
Contrasted. 

1.  According  to  the  Seminary  Creed  and  Consistent  Calvinism, 
"  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  has 
made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men."  The  Creed  also  de- 
clares, "  that  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  elect  is  the  eternal  Son  of 
God." 

Now  if  these  Creed  statements  mean  anything,  they  mean  what 
they  say.  Their  plain  import  is,  that  the  Son  of  God  alone  made 
the  atonement.  He  was  the  sole  being  who  hung  upon  the  cross 
in  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  The  distinct  avowal  of  the 
fact  of  the  solitariness  of  Christ  while  accomplishing  his  atoning 
work  cannot  be  gotten  out  of  these  Creed  statements.  No  honest 
interpretation  of  them,  which  contradicts  their  positive  assertion 
of  the  absolute  aloneness  of  the  Son  of  God  in  making  the  atone- 
ment, is  possible.  If  there  is  any  such  interpretation,  we  chal- 
lenge the  defendant  and  all  his  progressive  associates  to  state 
what  it  is. 


204 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


But  this  doctrine  of  the  Creed  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  con- 
tradicts.   Its  language  is  :  — 

When  Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers.  .  .  .  Thus  we  can  regard  Him  as 
our  substitute,  not  because  He  stands  apart,  not  because  He  is  one  and 
the  race  another,  but  because  He  is  so  identified  with  us.  .  . 

No  member  of  the  race  is  separate  from  him  who  thus  offers  himself.2 

These  statements,  and  many  others  like  them,  we  submit,  are 
in  absolute  and  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the  Seminary  Creed 
and  the  belief  of  all  Consistent  Calvinists.  They  are  so  many 
positive  assertions  that  the  Son  of  God  was  not  alone  in  making 
the  atonement.  If  no  man  was  separate  from  Christ  when  he 
was  offered  in  sacrifice  on  the  cross  for  the  sins  of  the  world, 
then  all  men  were  with  Him  and  in  Him  on  the  cross,  and  took 
part  with  Him  in  making  atonement  for  their  own  sins  and  in 
redeeming  themselves  from  the  curse  of  the  law.  Christ,  there- 
fore, is  not  the  "  only  Redeemer."  Every  man  is  as  truly  a 
redeemer  of  at  least  one  condemned  and  lost  soul  as  is  the  Sou  of 
God  himself. 

Such  teaching,  though  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  Creed  and 
with  Consistent  Calvinism,  is  yet  in  perfect  accord  with  "the 
central  and  vital  principle"  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  In- 
deed, it  is  the  inevitable  outcome  of  that  principle.  The  pan- 
theistic notion  that  the  constitution  of  Christ's  Person  is  such 
that  He  is  in  organic  and  vital  union  with  the  race  as  a  whole  and 
with  every  member  of  it  leads  inevitably  to  the  absurd  belief 
that  all  men,  from  Adam  to  the  last  man  who  shall  be  born,  actu- 
ally suffered  and  died  on  Calvary,  and  so  with  and  in  Christ  made 
full  and  acceptable  atonement  for  all  their  sins.  Thus  this  "  prin- 
ciple," as  the  Andover  progressives  term  it,  paganizes  and  cor- 
rupts the  Christian  doctrine  of  atonement  as  it  does  every  other 
Scriptural  revelation  to  which  it  is  applied. 

The  Creed-Doctrine  of  Vicarious  Atonement. 

2.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  both  the  Andover  Creed  and  of  Con- 
sistent Calvinism,  that  Christ,  in  his  sufferings  and  death,  became 
our  substitute,  and  our  only  substitute,  in  the  sense  that  He  took 
our  place  before  the  holy  law  of  God  which  we  have  broken,  and 


1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  53.      2  Ibid.  p.  66. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


205 


there  aloDe  suffered  and  died  for  us  and  in  our  stead.  The  atone- 
ment which  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  made  was  a  vicarious 
atonement.  The  Creed  says  that  "  the  Son  of  God,  and  He 
alone,  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  all  men."  All  men  are  sinners  and  as  such  are  guilty, 
condemned,  and  exposed  to  eternal  death  for  their  own  sins. 
Christ  in  suffering  and  dying  for  their  sins  took  their  place,  be- 
came their  substitute,  and  freely  offered  his  own  sufferings  and 
death  in  the  place  of  the  death  eternal  which  God  threatens  and 
which  all  sinners  deserve.  All  this  our  Redeemer  did  in  order  to 
make  it  possible  for  God,  in  perfect  consistency  with  his  own 
righteousness  and  his  holy  law,  to  save  all  men  who  should  repent 
of  their  sins,  and  believe  in  God,  or  in  God  as  revealed  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  not  simply  our  interpretation  of  the 
Creed.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed  as  interpreted  by  the 
kLOwn  belief  of  its  authors.  It  is  an  established  legal  principle 
that  the  known  belief  of  the  writer  or  writers  of  such  a  docu- 
ment furnishes  the  true  and  legal  interpretation  of  it.  The 
writers  of  the  Andover  Creed,  we  repeat,  were  Hopkinsians,  and 
called  themselves  "  Consistent  Calvinists."  Theirs  was  the  most 
definite,  positive,  and  clean-cut  system  of  theology  then  in  exist- 
ence. Every  theologian  knows,  or  may  know,  just  what  it  is. 
Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  himself  defined  the  vicarious  atonement  of 
Christ  in  these  words  :  — 

When  it  is  said,  "  Christ  died  for  our  sins,"  the  meaning  must  be 
that  his  death  is  the  atonement  and  propitiation  for  sin;  and  that 
by  it  he  suffered  the  evil  with  which  sin  is  threatened  in  the  law,  or 
the  penalty  and  curse  of  the  law,  or  that  which  is  equivalent.  To 
suffer  for  sin,  and  for  the  sinner,  is  so  far  to  take  the  place  of  the 
sinner,  as  to  suffer  the  evil  which  he  deserves,  and  which  otherwise 
the  sinner  must  have  suffered.  Or,  which  is  the  same,  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  answer  the  same  end  with  respect  to  the  law  and  divine 
government,  that  otherwise  must  be  answered  by  the  eternal  destruc- 
tion of  the  sinner.1 

Such  was  the  belief  not  only  of  Dr.  Hopkins,  but  of  all  Con- 
sistent Calviuists,  and  in  particular  of  Drs.  Spring,  Woods,  and 
Emmons,  who  were  the  writers  in  chief  of  the  Andover  Creed. 
Professors  Moses  Stuart  and  Edwards  A.  Park  held  and  taught 

1  iiopkina's  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  327,  328. 


206 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


the  same  belief  respecting  the  atonement.  Professor  Stuart 
wrote :  — 

When  I  say  Christ  in  his  sufferings  was  our  substitute,  or,  by  them  he 
made  an  expiatory  offering  for  us,  I  mean  that  God  did  appoint 

AND  ACCEPT  THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST,  INSTEAD  OF  INFLICTING  THE 
PUNISHMENT  DUE  TO  US  AS  SINNERS  AGAINST  HIS  LAW ;    and  that  in 

consequence  of  this  appointment  and  of  these  sufferings,  he  does  forgive  our 
sins  and  receive  ^ls  to  his  favor.1 

Dr.  Park,  referring  specifically  to  the  Andover  Creed,  writes : 

In  the  most  moderate  interpretation  of  its  words,  as  explained  by  its 
framers,  it  requires  a  belief  in  the  following  principles:  "The  God- 
rnan  is  our  priest,  our  royal  priest,  our  royal  prophet-priest.  In  this 
royal  priestly  office  he  offers  the  sacrifice  for  sin.  This  sacrifice,  in 
its  very  nature,  involves  the  idea  of  his  death  and  sufferings,  all  of 
which  represent  the  legal  penalty  for  sin,  and  are,  for  the  purposes  of 
moral  government,  of  equal  avail  with  that  penalty.  The  pains  and 
death  of  the  Lamb  of  God  were  designed  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  God's 
law,  and  of  his  retributive  justice,  as  much  as  it  would  have  been  vindi- 
cated by  inflicting  the  legal  penalty  on  the  penitent:  this  is  the  nature 
of  bis  sacrifice.  Our  High  Priest's  righteousness,  i.  e.,  '  his  obedience 
unto  death,' is  the  only  ground  on  which  sinners  can  be  justified; 
and  their  faith  which  receives  and  rests  upon  this  '  obedience  unto 
death,'  is  the  only  condition  on  which  they  can  be  justified ;  and  these 
two  facts  explain  the  very  nature  of  the  atoning  sacrifice.  .  .  .  Agree- 
ably to  the  arrangement  called  the  covenant  of  redemption,  the  Re- 
deemer made  the  atonement  for  all  men  :  agreeably  to  the  arrangement 
called  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  Sovereign  of  the  Universe  determined 
from  all  eternity,  on  the  ground  of  this  atonement,  to  regenerate  and 
pardon  some  men :  accordingly,  Christ  suffered  and  died  for  the  whole 
race,  but  is  the  actual  and  the  only  Redeemer  of  a  part  of  the  race."2 

The  defendant,  Professor  E.  C.  Smyth,  in  his  defence  before 
the  Visitors,  asked  the  complainants,  in  the  tone  of  a  jeer,  if 
they  would  "  please  to  point  out  what  is  the  theory  of  the  Atone- 
ment made  binding  in  the  Creed  as  a  condition  of  a  trust? 
Where  is  it  found,  and  how  it  is  expressed  ?  " 3  If  the  Professor 
does  not  know  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  is,  which  is 
required  by  the  Statutes  and  Creed  of  Andover  Seminary,  to  be 
maintained  and  taught  on  the  Andover  Foundations,  why  has  he 
so  many  times  subscribed  to  the  Creed?    If  he  did  not  know 

1  Stuart's  Miscellanies,  pp.  222,  223.  2  The  Associate  Creed  of  Andover  Theological 
Seminary,  by  Edwards  A.  Park,  p.  35.  3  The  Andover  Defence,  p.  120. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


207 


what  he  was  required  by  the  Statutes  to  teach  respecting  the 
chief  doctrine  of  Christianity,  why  has  he  so  many  times  said  in 
solemn  promise  before  the  Trustees:  "  I  will  religiously  conform 
to  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  this  Seminary,  and  to  the  Stat- 
utes of  this  Foundation"?  Did  he,  or  did  he  not,  in  addressing 
those  requests  for  information  to  the  complainants,  publicly  con- 
fess that  he  is  the  kind  of  man  who  can  subscribe  to  such  a  decla- 
ration of  faith,  not  knowing  what  the  faith  is  which  he  declares  he 
accepts  and  will  teach  ;  and  that  he  is  the  kind  of  man  who  can 
religiously  make  a  solemn  promise  to  conform  to  certain  Statutes, 
not  knowing  what  he  promises  to  do  ? 

However  the  Professor  may  answer  these  questions,  we  have  no 
objection  to  respond  to  his  request  for  information  by  saying  that 
the  doctrine  —  not  ' '  the  theory  "  —  of  atonement,  the  maintaining 
and  inculcating  of  which  is  "made  binding  in  the  Creed  as  a 
condition  of  a  trust,"  and  a  condition  of  his  holding  his  chair  on 
the  Associate  Foundation,  he  will  find,  first,  in  the  Creed  itself ; 
secondly,  in  that  part  of  Article  II  of  the  Associate  Statutes 
which  requires  every  professor  to  be  "  an  orthodox  and  consistent 
Calvinist "  ;  and  thirdly,  in  the  exhaustive  and  incomparable 
Treatise  on  "The  Associate  Creed  of  Andover  Theological  Sem- 
inary. By  Edwards  A.  Park."  If  now  the  defendant,  in  reply, 
affirms  that  this  requirement  of  the  Statute,  that  every  professor 
shall  be  a  "  consistent  Calvinist,"  is  indefinite,  and  points  to  no 
particular  doctrine  of  atonement,  we  deny  his  statement.  Every 
intelligent  theologian  who  has  made  even  a  cursory  examination 
of  what  the  Founders  called  "  Consistent  Calvinism,"  knows  that 
this  statutory  requirement  does  point  to  a  most  definite  and  clearly 
defined  doctrine  of  atonement ;  a  doctrine,  too,  which  is,  as  we 
shall  show,  in  irreconcilable  antagonism  to  the  theory  of  atonement 
which  is  now  held  and  taught  by  the  defendant  and  his  progressive 
associates  in  Andover  Seminary,  in  violation  of  a  most  sacred 
trust  and  promise. 

The  Opposing  Theory  of  Vicarious  Atonement. 

3.  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy "  teaches  that  the  vicariousness  of 
the  atonement  consists  in  this,  that  "  the  individual  in  Christ  takes 
the  place  of  the  individual  ivithout  Christ."  The  statement  in  this 
quotation  is  not,  that  Christ  takes  the  place  of  the  individual. 


208 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


but  that  the  individual  in  Christ  takes  the  place  of  the  indi- 
vidual; for  "the  individual  without  Christ"  is  simply  the  indi- 
vidual. It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed  that  Christ  takes  the  place 
of,  and  dies  for,  the  individual.  It  is  the  teaching  of  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy  "  that  Christ  alone  does  not  do  this,  but  that 
the  individual  sinner  in  Christ  takes  the  place  of  himself  and 
suffers  and  dies  as  a  substitute  for  himself.  Can  such  an  absurd- 
ity be  reconciled  with  the  sublime  doctrine  of  Christ's  vicarious 
atonement  as  set  forth  in  the  Andover  Creed  and  in  Consistent 
Calvinism? 

It  should  also  be  noticed  that,  according  to  this  view  of  the 
vicariousness  of  the  atonement,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that 
"the  individual"  —  that  is,  every  human  being — should  have 
been  in  Christ  "  before  our  Lord  suffered  on  the  cross,  else  how 
could  every  individual  have  suffered  and  died  with  Him  in  atone- 
ment for  himself?  Adam  and  his  every  descendant,  to  the  last 
person  who  shall  be  born,  including  the  most  wicked  men  who 
ever  have,  or  ever  will,  live,  all  must  have  been  "  in  Christ" pre- 
vious to  his  death ;  for  if  a  single  individual  member  of  the  race 
was  not  "  in  Christ  "  previous  to  his  death,  that  person,  according 
to  the  theory,  did  not  have,  and  never  can  have,  any  share  in  the 
vicarious  atonement  made  on  Calvary.  According  to  this  marvel- 
ous theology,  termed  by  its  advocates  "Advanced  Thought," 
"  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  so  on,  no  man's  sins  have  been, 
or  ever  can  be,  atoned  for,  save  as  he  was  individually  "in 
Christ "  previous  to  his  sacrifice  on  the  cross,  took  part  in  Christ's 
sufferings  and  death,  and  so  became  a  substitute  for  himself,  and 
made  atonement  for  his  own  sins.  But  if  each  and  every  member 
of  the  race  was  "  in  Christ  "  previous  to  his  sacrifice  on  Calvary, 
how  long  had  they  been  in  Him?  Was  each  man  from  the  date  of 
his  birth  only  "  in  Christ"?  If  so,  how  about  those  who  were 
born  after  Christ's  atoning  death?  Was  each  man  "  in  Christ" 
only  from  the  date  of  the  Incarnation  ?  If  so,  how  about  all  the 
people  who  lived  iu  the  ages  preceding  the  Incarnation?  Were 
they  saved,  if  saved  at  all,  without  union  with  Christ,  and  so 
without  repentance?  Were  all  members  of  the  race  "  in  Christ" 
from  all  eternity?  If  so,  how  can  they  be  in  any  need  of  atone- 
ment? If  the  human  race  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  very  being 
of  the  Son  of  God,  the  race  is  in  the  Son  from  everlasting  to 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


209 


everlasting,  and  no  member  of  the  race  can  be  lost  any  more  than 
the  Son  of  God  can  be  lost. 

Again,  according  to  the  theory,  "  the  individual  in  Christ  takes 
the  place  of  the  individual  without  Christ."  But  we  repeat  the 
question,  when  was  "the  individual  without  Christ"?  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy"  teaches  that  Christ's  "universe  is  not 
attached  to  Him  externally,  but  vitally.  He  is  not  a  governor  set 
over  it,  but  is  its  life  everywhere."  Of  course,  then,  He  is  the 
life  of  every  man.  He  is  not  the  Creator  of  life  as  something 
other  than  Himself,  He  is  the  life  of  every  man.  The  con- 
stitution of  Christ's  person  is  such  that  all  men  are  organically 
and  vitally  united  to  Him,  if  not  from  all  eternity,  yet  at 
least  from  the  first  moment  of  their  existence.  Then  no  man 
was  ever  out  of  Christ,  and  that  "  the  individual  in  Christ  "  should 
take  the  place  of  "the  individual  without  Christ"  is  an  utter  im- 
possibility. The  "  individual  without  Christ"  is  a  nonentity,  and 
no  man  in  Christ  can  be  substituted  —  in  the  theological  sense  of 
substitution  —  for  a  nonentity,  to  say  nothing  of  the  absurdity  of 
a  man  substituting  himself  for  himself.  Thus  this  sonorous  and 
pretentious  theory  of  an  atonement  made  by  the  substitution  of 
the  race  and  the  individual  in  Christ  for  the  race  and  the  individ- 
ual without  Christ  vanishes  into  nothing.  According  to  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy  "  itself,  there  is  not  now,  and  never  has  been, 
any  such  thing  in  existence  as  a  human  race  or  an  individual 
without  Christ.  This  theory  of  vicarious  atonement  is  self- 
destructive.    It  has  in  it  the  seed  of  its  own  death. 

God  Not  Reconciled  to  Impenitent  Sinners. 

4.  It  is  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  Consistent  Calvinism  and  of  the 
Andover  Creed,  as  well  as  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  God  is 
never,  by  any  mediation  or  atonement,  or  by  any  other  means, 
propitiated  or  reconciled  to  impenitent  and  unbelieving  sinners, 
but  that  "repentance,  faith,  and  holiness  are  personal  requisites 
in  the  Gospel  scheme  of  salvation"  ;  that  is,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  vicarious  atonement  of  Christ  that  reconciles  God  to,  and  actu- 
ally saves,  any  sinner  before  he  personally  fulfils  certain  condi- 
tions. When  one  man  becomes  reconciled  to  another  who  has 
become  his  enemy  and  has  wronged  him,  he  forgives  him.  It  is 
inconceivable  that  any  man  should  be  reconciled  to  an  enemy  who 


210 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


has  wronged  him,  and  at  the  same  time  not  forgive  him,  saying  to 
him,  "  I  am  perfectly  reconciled  to  you  ;  it  is  all  right  between 
us;  but  I  have  not  forgiven  you,  and  never  will  forgive  you." 
In  such  a  case  the  wronged  man  is  not  reconciled.  Forgiveness 
is  the  very  heart  of  reconciliation.  If  there  is  no  forgiveness, 
there  is  no  reconciliation.  So  when  God  has  become  reconciled 
to  a  sinner  He  has  forgiven  him.  If  He  has  not  forgiven  him, 
He  is  unreconciled  to  him.  The  divine  reconciliation  and  forgive- 
ness go  together.  But  a  sinner  forgiven  of  God  is  a  sinner 
saved.  Yet  God  cannot  righteously  become  reconciled  to,  for- 
give, and  save  impenitent  and  persistent  sinners.  He  cannot  for- 
give and  save  the  wicked  in  their  wickedness.  If  he  becomes 
reconciled  to  sinners  in  their  sins,  He  becomes  reconciled  to  sin, 
and  ceases  to  be  holy  Himself.  According  to  the  Andover  Creed, 
the  atonement  is  not  a  means  of  propitiating  and  reconciling  God 
to  impenitent  and  unbelieving  sinners,  but  "repentance,  faith 
and  holiness  are  personal  requisites"  which  must  be  personally 
fulfilled  by  the  sinner  before  God  is  reconciled  to  him,  forgives, 
and  saves  him  ;  and  the  atonement  of  Christ  makes  it  possible  for 
God,  in  perfect  consistency  with  his  own  righteousness,  with  his 
own  stainless  justice  and  holy  law,  to  be  reconciled  to,  and  to 
forgive  and  save,  penitent  and  trusting  sinners. 

Now  we  do  not  present  this  view  as  our  opinion,  or  our  belief, 
even  though  it  is  our  belief  ;  but  we  submit  to  the  Visitors  that  this 
is  exactly  the  doctrine  of  the  Andover  Creed,  and  the  well-known 
doctrine  of  Consistent  Calvinism,  which  Creed  and  Calvinism  the 
defendant  and  all  his  progressive  compeers  have  solemnly  declared 
that  they  believe,  and  have  religiously  promised  to  teach. 

The  Progressives'  Theory  of  Divine  Reconciliation. 

Now  what  is  the  doctrine  which  they  are  actually  maintaining 
and  teaching  in  their  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  ?  It  is  this  :  that 
God  is  reconciled  to  impenitent  and  unbelieving  and  persistent 
sinners  ;  that  He  does  forgive  and  save  sinners  in  their  sins,  before 
ever  they  repent,  trust  in  and  obey  God.  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  says  :  — 

Because  God  is  reconciled  in  Jesus  Christ  man  repents  and  begins  a 
new  life.    The  gospel  never  reverses  this  order  of  dependence.1 

1  pp.  46,  47. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


211 


Professor  George  Harris,  —  who  ought  to  know  what  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy"  teaches,  — in  his  defence  at  his  trial  before  the 
Visitors,  made  this  remarkable  affirmation:  — 

The  fundamental  position  is  that  because  God  is  reconciled  to  man, 
therefore  man  is  forgiven,  rather  than  that  God  forgives  by  reason  of 
any  thing  that  man  does.  First  God  is  reconciled,  then  man  repents. 
Not  first  man  repents,  and  then  God  is  reconciled.1 

"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  Universalism. 

The  positive  assertion  in  this  language  is,  that  God  is  reconciled 
to  sinners  before  they  repent ;  that  is,  is  reconciled  to  impenitent 
sinners.  But  we  repeat,  if  God  is  reconciled  to  impenitent  sinners, 
He  forgives  impenitent  sinners.  And  an  impenitent  sinner  for- 
given of  God  is  a  sinner  saved  in  his  sins.  In  this  case,  there  are 
no  "  personal  requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation."  "  Per- 
sonal repentance,  faith  and  holiness  "  are  not  necessary  to  the 
salvation  of  any  sinner.  Moreover,  if  there  are  no  conditions  to 
be  fulfilled  personally  by  sinners  precedent  to  their  forgiveness 
and  salvation,  and  if  God  is  reconciled  to  all  impenitent  sinners 
persisting  in  their  sins,  then  He  forgives  and  saves  all  sinners. 
Thus  we  again  establish  the  charge  which  we  have  so  often  proved, 
that  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  absolute  Universalism  —  a 
Universalism,  moreover,  according  to  which  all  men  are  saved, 
not  from  their  sins,  but  in  their  sins. 

Justification  by  Faith. 

5.  The  great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  a  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  of  Consistent  Calvinism. 
The  Creed  affirms,  in  connection  with  its  statement  of  the  doctrine 
of  atonement, 

that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's  justi- 
fication ;  that  this  righteousness  is  received  through  faith ;  and  that  this 
faith  is  the  gift  of  God. 

According  to  this  creed-statement,  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
is  of  no  avail  to  a  sinner  until  he  receives  it  "through  faith." 
That  is,  faith  in  Christ,  or  believing  on  Christ,  is  a  condition  to 
be  fulfilled  by  the  sinner  himself,  precedent  to  his  justification. 


1  The  Andover  Defence,  p.  294. 


212 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


The  teaching  of  the  Creed  is  not  that  God  first  justifies  the  sinner, 
and  then  the  sinner  believes  on  Christ,  and  that  this  order  is  never 
reversed  in  the  gospel ;  but  that  first  the  sinner  believes  on  Christ, 
and  then  is  justified  of  God,  and  that  this  order  in  the  gospel  is 
never  reversed.  When  a  sinner  believes  on  Christ  he  not  only 
trusts  in  Him  for  that  remission  of  sins  which  is  graciously  offered 
him  through  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice,  but  he  also  trusts  in  Christ's 
perfect  righteousness,  that  is,  in  his  obedience  unto  death,  ap- 
proves of  and  pleads  that  righteousness  before  God,  and  so  is 
brought  into  moral  and  spiritual  sympathy  with  Christ,  and  is 
personally  united  to  Him  in  character,  in  righteousness.  All  this 
would  be  impossible  without  Christ's  perfect  and  glorious  right- 
eousness ;  and  therefore,  on  the  ground  of  that  righteousness,  the 
condemned  and  lost  sinner,  through  his  faith  in  Christ,  and  in  his 
righteousness,  is  accepted  and  justified  of  God.  He  now  dwells 
in  Christ  by  faith,  and  Christ  dwells  in  his  heart.  He  is  now  "  in 
Christ"  and  Christ  is  "in  him,"  not  by  any  organic  and  vital 
union,  but  by  faith.  He  is  now  one  with  Christ,  not  one  in 
essence  of  being  —  that  is  a  pagan  notion,  it  is  Pantheism  —  but 
one  with  Christ  through  love,  sympathy,  and  trust,  one  with  Him 
in  purpose  and  righteousness.  Thus  the  sinner  through  faith  puts 
on  Christ,  receives,  and  is  clothed  in  Christ's  righteousness,  and 
on  the  ground  of  that  righteousness  is  justified  of  God.  Such 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Creed. 

Justification  without  Faith. 

But  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  antagonizes  this  great  Protestant 
and  evangelical  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  by  setting  forth 
somewhat  cautiously  a  theory  of  justification  without  faith,  or 
previous  to  faith  —  of  justification  grounded,  not  upon  Christ's 
righteousuess,  but  upon  the  pantheistic  notion  that  the  entire 
human  race  was  with  and  in  Christ  when  He  was  offered  up  on  the 
cross.  Because  of  that  imagined  uuiou  of  all  men  with  Christ  in 
his  atoning  sacrifice,  all  men  are  justified  of  God  before  faith. 
The  progressive  divines  boldly  affirm  that  God  is  reconciled  to  all 
sinners  before  they  repent,  or  believe,  or  obey  ;  but,  seemingly  for 
prudential  reasons,  they  are  wary  iu  setting  forth  their  theory  of 
justification  without  faith.  Yet  this  theory  is  involved  in  their 
notion  that  God  is  reconciled  to  siuuers  before  they  repent.  If 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


213 


God  is  reconciled  to  impenitent,  unbelieving,  and  persistent  sin- 
ners, He  is  no  longer  opposed  to  them,  but  is  at  peace  with  them, 
is  satisfied  with  them,  forgives  and  justifies  them.  It  is  impossi- 
ble that  God  should  be  reconciled  to  a  man  whom  He  does  not 
justify.    Such  a  reconciliation  would  be  immoral. 

Impenitent  Sinners  Justified  on  the  Ground  of  Their 
Eminent  Value. 
The  actual  representation  of  the  Andover  progressives  is,  that  all 
men  are  "in  Christ,"  not  by  faith,  but  by  an  organic  and  vital 
union  with  Him  ;  and  that  on  the  ground  of  this  union  with  Christ 
they  have  eminent  value  in  the  sight  of  God,  are  essentially 
different  in  fact  from  what  they  would  have  been  without  this 
union,  are  looked  upon  by  God  as  being  other  than  they  would 
have  been,  as  having  had  imparted  to  them,  through  this  union, 
powers  and  capacities  of  which  they  would  otherwise  have  been 
wholly  destitute,  and  so  on  the  ground  of  these  betterments  in  the 
condition  and  relations  of  all  sinners,  entirely  apart  from  any 
change  in  their  moral  character,  they  are  more  highly  esteemed  by 
God,  and  so  He  becomes  propitious  toward  them,  in  other  words 
becomes  reconciled  to  them  and  justifies  them  in  their  sins ;  not, 
we  repeat,  because  they  have  repented,  believed,  and  become 
obedient,  for  all  this  is  beyond  their  power ;  but  because  by  their 
union  with  Christ  they  have  attained  augmented  value  in  the 
sight  of  God,  and  have  become  capable  of  repenting,  obeying, 
trusting.1 

Such  is  the  notion  of  God's  justification  of  sinners  as  set  forth 
in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  It  is  a  justification  previous  to 
faith,  and  therefore  without  faith.  It  is  the  justification  of  all 
sinners  through  their  vital  union  with  Christ.  Such  a  notion  can 
never  be  reconciled  with  the  great  Scriptural  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith  as  stated  in  the  Creed  and  as  held  by  all  Consistent 
Calvinists.  The  antagonism  between  the  two  beliefs  is  uncom- 
promising. 

"  Personal  Requisites." 
6.  While  the  Andover  Creed  and  Consistent  Calvinism  set  forth 
the  atonement  of  Christ  as  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners,  they  also  place  marked  emphasis  upon  the  divine 

"  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  52,  53,  56. 


214  Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 

revelation  that,  "  repentance,  faith  and  holiness  are  personal 
requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation."  All  Consistent 
Calvinists  make  conspicuous  in  their  faith  and  in  their  preaching 
the  great  gospel  truth,  that  while  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  suffi- 
cient for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  it  yet  never  becomes  efficient  in 
the  salvation  of  any  man,  until  he  repents  of  his  sins,  believes  on 
Christ,  and  begins  to  be  in  character  and  life  a  holy  man.  They 
believe  and  preach,  that  God  from  all  eternity  was  a  loving,  mer- 
ciful, and  gracious  God,  that  He  "  so  loved  the  world  "  that  He 
gave  his  Son  to  die  for  it ;  that  it  was  always  in  his  disposition  to 
become  actually  propitiated  and  reconciled  to  penitent  and  believ- 
ing sinners,  and  thus  to  forgive  and  save  them,  in  case  He  could 
do  this  righteously,  or  without  bringing  shame  upon  his  own  char- 
acter and  breaking  down  the  authority  of  his  holy  Law.  They 
also  believe  and  preach  that  the  atonement  made  in  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God,  and  of  Him  alone,  did  open  a  way 
for  God,  or  make  it  possible  for  Him,  without  dishonor  to  his 
own  character  and  throne,  to  become  propitiated  and  reconciled 
to  sinners,  in  other  words,  to  forgive  and  save  them,  upon  the 
condition,  and  only  upon  the  condition,  that  they  repent  of  their 
sins,  believe  on  Christ,  and  become  obedient  to  God.  Hence 
Consistent  Calvinists  have  always  been  evangelistic  Christians, 
praying,  preaching,  and  laboring  for  the  immediate  conversion  of 
their  fellow-men,  and  doing  this  in  fulfilment  of  the  express  com- 
mand of  the  Lord  Jesus,  "  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins 
should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at 
Jerusalem,"  and  doing  this  also  in  the  spirit  of  the  great  mission- 
ary Apostle,  who  could  say  to  the  elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus, 
I  "  have  shewed  3-011,  and  have  taught  you  publicly,  and  from  house 
to  house,  testifying  to  both  Jews  and  Greeks  repentance  toward 
God  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

But  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  on  the  contrary,  places  no 
emphasis  upon  "repentance,  faith  and  holiness"  as  "personal 
requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation."  The  progressive 
divines  are  giving  no  noticeable  exhibitions  of  evangelistic  fervor. 
Indeed,  they  cannot,  in  consistency  with  their  pantheistic  beliefs, 
go  everywhere  preaching  "  repentance  toward  God  and  faith 
toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  laboring  in  season  and  out 
for  the  conversion  and  salvation  of  lost  sinners.    Why  should 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


215 


they  do  anything  for  the  redemption  of  men  who  are  already  in 
organic  and  vital  union  with  Christ?  What  more  can  be  done  for 
them?  Even  if  a  progressive  professor  should,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  his  old  but  now  abandoned  evangelical  faith,  or  from 
sheer  force  of  habit,  or  for  the  purpose  of  holding  on  to  a  desir- 
able official  position,  continue  to  speak  and  teach  in  favor  of 
immediate  conversions,  Pentecostal  revivals,  and  evangelistic  mis- 
sions, yet  how  long  would  he  do  so?  These  Andover  progressives 
are  properly  called  "liberal  Christians"  ;  but  "liberal  Christians" 
have  never  been  marvelously  famous  for  their  evangelistic  and 
missionary  labors.  No  honorable  man  will  for  any  length  of 
time  teach  and  preach  what  is  utterly  discordant  with  his  own 
beliefs.  Already  there  is  evidence  that  it  is  the  chief  purpose  of 
the  new-departure  professors  to  train  young  men  for  philanthropic, 
socialistic,  and  educational  work,  to  the  neglect,  if  not  exclusion, 
of  all  evangelistic  labors.  If  the  advocates  of  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  "  preach  and  work  in  harmony  with  their  opinions  and 
beliefs,  as  sooner  or  later  they  certainly  will  do  if  they  preach 
and  labor  at  all,  they  must  place  all  emphasis,  not  upon  repentance 
and  faith,  nor  upon  any  other  voluntary  obedience  to  God  and  to 
the  gospel  of  his  Son,  but  upon  their  own  regnant  theological 
principle  of  the  organic  and  vital  union  of  the  entire  race  with 
Christ,  proclaiming  everywhere  that  all  men  are  " in  Christ"  be- 
fore, and  of  course  without,  repentance,  faith,  and  holiness,  and 
even  before  and  without  atonement.  What  they  are  bound  to 
make  as  conspicuous  in  their  preaching  as  it  is  in  their  belief,  is 
this,  that  for  all  practical  ends  the  supreme  need  of  every  man  is, 
not  to  repent  of  his  sins  and  believe  on  Christ,  but  to  know  that 
he  himself  is  in  Christ,  and  that  Christ  is  in  him  ;  to  know  that  he 
himself  was  in  Christ,  not  only  before  repentance,  faith,  and 
obedience,  but  even  before  Christ  was  offered  in  sacrifice  upon  the 
cross.  This  "knowledge  of  Christ"  is  of  supreme  concern  to 
every  man.  Personal  repentance,  faith,  and  obedience  are  of 
comparatively  little  moment.  The  phrases,  "knowledge  of 
Christ,"  "having  knowledge  of  Christ,"  "to  know  Christ," 
abound  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy  "and  in  nearly  all  the  reli- 
gious writings  and  speech  of  the  Andover  progressives.  We  have 
not  space  for  quotations,  nor  are  they  necessary.  No  oue  can 
read  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  without  noting  the  frequent  asser- 


216 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


tion,  in  one  form  or  another,  of  the  absolute  indispensableness  of 
"  the  knowledge  of  Christ."  Just  what  this  knowledge  is,  or  what 
degree  of  it  is  so  necessary,  we  are  not  clearly  informed.  Evi- 
dently, however,  it  is  not  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ  of  which  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  spoke.  It  is,  as 
has  already  been  shown,  simply  a  knowledge  of  Christ  in  his  union 
with  men.  In  this  view,  what  every  man  supremely  needs  is  "  to 
know  "  Christ  in  the  alleged  constitution  of  his  person,  in  his  alleged 
vital  relation  to  every  member  of  the  human  race  ;  to  know  that  he 
himself,  irrespective  of  his  own  character  as  righteous  or  wicked, 
or' of  any  act  of  his  own,. is  united  to  the  Lord  Jesus  by  an  or- 
ganic and  vital  union,  and  that  he  was  thus  united  to  Him  before 
the  crucifixion,  and  while  Christ  was  suffering  and  dying  upon  the 
cross,  and  that  he  will  be  thus  united  to  Him  forever.  This  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,  it  is  claimed,  may  lead  to  repentance,  faith,  and  holi- 
ness. It  is  also  claimed  that  no  man  will  or  can  repent  without 
this  knowledge.  Consequently  all  members  of  the  race  who  do  not 
know  Christ  in  this  life  must  have  opportunity  to  know  Him,  and 
will  know  Him,  in  the  life  to  come.  But  what  evidence  is  there 
that  this  knowledge  will  bring  any  man  to  repentance  either  in  this 
life  or  in  the  next?  Where  is  the  man  who  will  testify  that  by 
his  knowledge  of  Christ  as  vitally  united  to  every  human  being 
he  was  brought  to  repentance,  faith,  and  obedience?  This  dogma 
of  the  organic  union  of  Christ  with  the  entire  human  race  has 
been  accepted  and  loudly  proclaimed  in  the  last  and  the  present 
centuries  by  Rellyan  Universalists,  and  by  other  men  holding 
pantheistic  beliefs ;  but  how  many  persons  are  there  who  have 
been  made  penitent,  believing,  and  holy  by  Rellyan  Universalism 
and  Pantheism?  Unregenerate  human  nature  being  what  it  is 
described  to  be  in  God's  Word,  and  what  we  know  it  to  be,  one 
would  suppose  that  if  an  impenitent  and  persistent  sinner  could 
know  assuredly  that  he  is  vitally  and  eternally  united  to  Christ,  he 
would  break  loose  from  all  restraint,  give  full  liberty  to  his  lusts 
and  passions,  and  plunge  deeper  than  ever  into  wickedness.  The 
moral  fruit  of  Rellyanism,  as  can  easily  be  shown,  has  thus  far 
been  anything  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost.  At  all  events,  this  emphasizing  and  magnifying  "the 
knowledge  of  Christ,"  as  He  is  set  forth  by  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy," in  his  pantheistic  union  with  the  entire  human  race,  is  in 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


217 


irreconcilable  conflict  with  the  Andover  Creed,  which  attaches 
supreme  practical  importance,  not  to  any  speculative  knowledge 
concerning  the  constitution  and  relations  of  Christ's  being,  but  to 
personal  "  repentance,  faith  and  holiness,"  as  the  indispensable 
conditions  of  our  salvation.  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  teaches, 
without  proof,  that  men  are  brought  to  repentauce,  faith,  and  holi- 
ness by  their  organic  and  vital  union  with  Christ,  and  to  salvation 
by  their  knowledge  of  that  union.  But  the  Andover  Creed  declares 
"that  by  convincing  us  of  our  sin  and  misery,  enlightening  our 
minds,  working  faith  in  us,  and  renewing  our  wills,  the  Holy 
Spirit  makes  us  partakers  of  the  benefits  of  redemption."  The 
antagonism  between  these  two  beliefs,  upon  the  supreme  question 
of  the  way  of  salvation,  is  unqualified  and  irrepressible. 

The  Atonement  Made  by  the  God-man. 

7.  The  defendant  antagonizes  the  Creed  and  Statutes  of  the 
Seminary  by  denying  that  Christ,  at  the  time  when  He  made  the 
atonement,  was  God  as  well  as  mau.  Who  was  the  being  who 
was  offered  in  atoning  sacrifice  on  Calvary?  The  statement  of 
the  Andover  Creed  is,  that  "  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,  by 
his  sufferings  and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all 
men."  But  who  is  "the  Son  of  God"?  The  Andover  Creed 
represents  that  He  is  the  Second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  "  the  same 
in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory  "  with  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  that  He,  "  the  eternal  Son  of  God,"  "  became  man, 
and  continues  to  be  God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one 
person  forever"  ;  and  that  while  He  was  continuing  to  be  God  and 
man,  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  Person,  He  "  the  Son  of  God, 
and  He  alone,  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  made  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  all  men."  No  mere  creature,  then,  according  to  this 
Creed,  was  the  author  of  the  atonement. 

The  Atonement  Made  by  a  Being  Who  was  not  God 
and  Man. 

But  the  defendant  denies  that  our  Lord,  while  He  was  in  the 
flesh  and  when  He  was  offered  in  atoning  sacrifice,  was  "God 
and  man  in  two  distinct  natures."  His  belief  is,  as  has  already 
been  shown  under  our  Second  Particular  Charge, 


218 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


that  Christ  in  the  days  of  his  humiliation  was  a  finite  heing,  limited  in 
all  his  attributes,  capacities  and  attainments;  in  other  words  was  not 
f  tod  and  Man ; 

that  He  was  not  omniscient  nor  omnipresent,  nor  possessed  of 
any  other  infinite  perfection  ;  that  He  did  not  at  that  time  have 
any  divine  nature  distinct  from  his  human  nature  ;  that  it  was 
his  human  nature  that  was  divine,  yet  only  as  the  human  nature 
of  every  other  man  is  divine.  Christ  while  in  the  flesh  was  sim- 
ply and  wholly  human,  and  his  divinity  was  simply  the  divineness 
of  all  humanity.  He  had  only  a  human  nature,  yet  this  was 
"  created  capacious  of  Deity,"  and  it  is  immediately  added, 
'•This  is  true  also  of  other  men  according  to  their  measure."1 
The  defendant  affirms  that 

it  is  the  belief  that  God  was  in  Christ  so  far  as  God  can  manifest  his 
life  in  a  human  personality  at  a  given  period  in  history.2 

But  the  same  may  be  said  of  every  other  man.  Yet  did  not 
Christ,  while  in  the  flesh,  work  mighty  miracles  of  mercy,  which 
required  something  more  than  human  power?  No.  He  wrought 
veritable  works  of  healing,  yet  wrought  them  by  human  means 
and  forces,  as,  for  instance,  by  the  power  which  a  man  with  a 
healthy  body  has  over  a  sick  man,  and  "by  hypnotic  and  mes- 
meric influence."3 

Such  is  the  teaching  of  the  defendant.  In  his  view,  Christ  in 
his  earthly  life,  and  when  he  made  the  atonement  for  the  race  of 
condemned  and  lost  sinners,  was  as  merely  and  wholly  human  as 
any  other  man  is. 

Now  was  such  a  merely  human  creature  "the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketb  away  the  sin  of  the  world"?  Did  a  mesmerizer,  by  his 
sufferings  and  death  on  Calvary,  make  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
all  men?  It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  representation  respecting  the 
divine  Author  of  the  atonement  could  have  been  more  shocking 
or  abhorrent  than  this  to  the  Consistent  Calvinists  who  founded 
Audover  Seminary.  It  was  a  cardinal  doctrine  with  them  that 
no  man  or  angel  was  equal  to  the  task  of  consummating  the  stu- 
pendous atoning  work  needful  for  the  salvation  of  sinners  ;  that 
only  the  eternal  Son  of  God  incarnated,  only  He  who  was  both 
"  God  and  man,"  could  possibly  have  become  "the  propitiation 

1  Prog.  Orth.  p.  21.      2  Aiulovcr  Review,  October,  1S92,  p.  398.      3  Ibid. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


219 


for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world."  Consistent  Calvinists  have  always  been  strenu- 
ously opposed  to  the  unscriptural  notion,  that  when  the  eternal 
Son  of  God  became  flesh  and  made  the  atonement  He  ceased 
to  be  God  and  became  only  a  creature.  We  have  already  alluded 
to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Emmons,  who  aided  in  writing  the  Andover 
Creed,  believed  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  when  He  was  taber- 
nacled in  the  flesh  and  dwelt  with  men,  at  the  same  time  filled 
all  heaven  with  his  presence.  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  whose  fol- 
lowers called  themselves  Consistent  Calvinists,  speaking  of  the 
transcendent  and  ineffable  work  of  redemption,  says  :  — 

Dr.  Hopkins's  View. 

A  mere  creature  would  be  infinitely  unequal  to  this.  It  is  necessary 
that  this  should  be  believed ;  that  his  infinitely  high  and  glorious  per- 
son and  character,  as  the  true  God,  should  be  kept  in  view,  in  order  to 
trust  in  him  as  the  Redeemer  of  man  from  the  infinite  evil  which  he 
deserves,  from  a  state  of  total  moral  depravity  to  the  favor  of  God,  to 
perfect  holiness  and  eternal  life,  by  his  suffering  and  obedience,  and 
by  his  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness. 

It  is  necessary  that  he  should  be  a  person  of  infinite  dignity,  excel- 
lence and  worthiness,  in  order  to  make  atonement  for  sin  by  suffering 
the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  has  been  explained  above  from  the  Scriptures. 
The  sufferings  of  a  mere  creature  could  do  nothing  towards  this ;  and 
had  such  an  one  offered  to  undertake  this,  it  would  have  been  so  far  from 
pleasing  the  Governor  of  the  world,  that  it  must  be  considered  as  an 
affront  oflered  to  him,  most  dishonorable  to  his  character,  law  and 
government ;  and  the  obedience  of  a  mere  creature  or  of  all  creatures, 
could  not  so  honor  the  law,  and  the  divine  authority  expressed  by  it, 
which  sinners  had  reproached  and  trampled  under  foot  by  their  rebellion, 
as  to  obtain  favor,  recovery  from  a  state  of  sin,  and  eternal  life  for 
them,  out  of  respect  to  the  merit  and  worthiness  of  such  obedience. 
This  could  be  done  by  none  but  a  person  of  infinite  greatness  and  worth, 
and  one  who  was  under  no  obligation  to  obey  antecedent  to  his  volun- 
tarily taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant.  And  it  requires  infinite 
power,  skill,  and  wisdom,  to  recover  a  rebel  from  total  depravity  and 
enmity  against  God  and  his  law,  to  obedience  and  holiness,  and  infinite 
condescension  and  goodness.  All  this  is  ascribed  to  the  Redeemer  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  has  been  shown.  And  surely  none  can  believe 
all  this,  and  rely  with  confidence  on  the  Redeemer  for  such  redemption, 
who  does  not  believe  him  to  be  truly  God,  infinitely  great,  honorable, 
powerful,  wise  and  good.1 

1  Hopkins's  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  358, 359. 


220 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


These  views  of  Dr.  Hopkins  respecting  the  deity  of  Christ  while 
He  dwelt  in  human  form  on  the  earth,  and  made  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  all  men,  are  the  views  of  all  Consistent  Calvinists. 
These  theologians  hold,  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  an  ade- 
quate atonement  for  all  human  sins  could  not  have  been  made 
by  any  mere  creature,  not  even  by  the  highest  archangel,  but 
cnly  by  Him  who  was  the  eternal  Son  of  God  incarnated,  the  one 
and  only  God-man.  Their  lofty  views  of  the  Incarnate  Son  of 
God  were  in  full  accord  with  those  of  the  great  church-father, 
Athanasius,  who,  speaking  of  the  Redeemer  as  manifested  in  the 
flesh,  glorifies  Him  in  such  language  as  the  following  :  — 

Athanasius'  View. 
For  He  was  not  circumscribed  in  the  body ;  nor  was  so  in  the  body  as 
not  to  be  elsewhere  too.  Nor.  while  He  moved  that,  had  He  emptied  the 
universe  of  His  effectual  working  and  providence ;  but,  what  is  most 
marvellous,  being  the  Word,  He  was  not  contained  by  any  thing,  but 
rather  contained  all  things  Himself.  And  as,  when  present  in  the  whole 
creation  He  is  essentially  distinct  from  it  all,  but  in  it  all  by  II is  power, 
ordering  all  things,  and  unfolding  II is  providence  over  all  things  in  all, 
and  quickening  eaeli  and  every  thing  at  once,  containing  the  universe, 
and  not  being  contained,  but  existing  wholly  in  His  Father  alone  in 
every  respect;  —  so  also,  existing  in  a  human  body  and  Himself  quick- 
ening it,  He  was  naturally  quickening  also  the  universe,  and  was  present 
in  every  part,  yet  outside  the  whole.  And  being  known  from  the  body 
through  His  works.  He  was  manifest  too  from  His  working  of  the 
universe.  .  .  .  And  this  is  the  marvel,  that  He  was  at  ouee  living  the 
daily  life  of  a  man.  and  as  the  Word  was  quickening  all  things,  and  as 
Son  was  present  with  the  Father.  Whence,  not  even  when  born  of  the 
Virgin,  did  He  undergo  change.1 

Now  when  these  sublime  words  of  Athanasius  respecting  the 
Deity  of  our  Incarnate  Lord  and  Redeemer  are  compared  with 
the  words  of  the  Andover  progressives  upon  the  same  theme, 
what  a  stupendous  contrast  is  presented  !  No  old  pagan  Panthe- 
ism glaring  at  us  from  out  the  language  of  this  great  church- 
father  ;  no  dethroning  of  Christ,  and  telling  us  that  He  ceased  to 
be  God  when  He  came  to  redeem  lost  sinners  ;  no  deifying  of  our- 
selves and  of  all  men,  and  telling  us,  what  we  know  is  false,  that 
we  are  all  God-men,  as  truly  as  Christ  was  a  God-mau  ;  no  tear- 
ing out  of  our  faith  and  out  of  our  Bible  the  glorious  mystery  of 
1  De  Incaruatione  Verbi  Dei,  chap.  xvii. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


221 


the  real  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ ;  nothing  of  this ;  but  our 
adorable  Redeemer  is  presented  to  us  as  God  and  man;  as  human, 
yet  at  the  same  time  as  filling  the  universe  with  his  quickening  and 
sustaining  presence  ;  manifested  in  a  human  body,  }Tet  at  the  same 
time  manifested  also  through  all  his  own  vast  creation,  from  which 
He  is  essentially  distinct,  but  which  He  ever  fills  and  transcends. 
Such  an  One  is,  indeed,  -'very  God  and  very  man."  And  He  it  was, 
and  He  alone,  who  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men.  This 
is  the  sublime  doctrine  of  the  Andover  Creed,  and  of  all  Consistent 
Calvinists,  as  well  as  of  the  great  church-father,  Athanasius. 

The  Defendant's  View. 

"Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  on  the  other  hand,  degrades  our 
infinite  Redeemer  by  representing  that  in  his  earthly  life  He  was 
merely  and  wholly  a  creature  having  only  a  created  human  nature 
with  all  its  necessary  limitations ;  that  this  created  nature  was 
divine  only  in  the  sense  in  which  all  men  and  beasts  and  things 
are  divine  ;  that  our  Redeemer's  presence  was  limited  to  his  body  ; 
that  his  knowledge  and  power  and  wisdom  were  limited  as  truly 
as  were  those  of  any  other  man  in  his  country,  and  at  his  period 
in  history  ;  that  it  is  simply  ridiculous  to  believe, 

that  God  in  all  his  absoluteness,  omniscience,  and  omnipotence  took  on 
the  form  of  a  man  and  walked  about  among  men  in  Galilee,  so  that 
Jesus  knew  all  occurrences  on  earth  and  through  the  universe,  and  was 
conscious  that  he  created  the  stars,  and  knew  more  not  only  than  the 
ancients,  but  more  than  the  moderns,  of  science  and  philosophy.1 

The  progressive  professors  hold  that  it  is  absolute  nonsense  to 
ascribe  to  the  world's  Incarnate  Redeemer  infinite  knowledge. 
They  doubtless  regard  those  who  believe  that  He  was  omniscient 
as  men  of  no  spirituality  or  mental  ability,  their  minds  being  anti- 
quated and  benighted  ; 2  but  are  fully  persuaded  that  those  who 
live  in  the  effulgent  light  that  has  recently  broken  upon  the  pro- 
gressive minds  at  Andover,  and  are  in  possession  of  their  superior 
spirituality  and  ability,  are  abundantly  competent  to  decide  what 
the  Almighty  can  do  among  men  in  Galilee,  and  what  He  cannot 
do,  and  are  abundantly  able,  out  of  their  own  knowledge  and  wis- 
dom, to  declare  for  the  information  of  the  world  that  the  actual 

1  Andover  Review,  October,  1S92,  pp.  397,  393.      2  See  The  Andover  Defence,  p.  296. 


222 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


Incarnation  of  the  eternal  Sou  of  God  was  an  absolute  impossi- 
bility ;  that  there  never  was  such  an  incarnation  ;  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  ouce  appeared  in  Galilee,  and  offered  Himself 
as  the  world's  Redeemer,  was  simply  aud  wholly  human  ;  that  his 
divinity,  so  called,  was  nothing  different  in  kind  from  their  own  ; 
that  He  was  simply  the  creature  of  his  own  time  and  country, 
weak,  ignorant,  aud  helpless,  and  that  by  this  man  the  atonement 
was  made  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  if,  indeed,  any  atonement,  so 
called,  was  ever  made.  Yet  the  said  atonement  was  not  made  by 
Him  alone,  but  by  Him  in  union  with  and  aided  by  all  other  men 
who  ever  have  lived  or  ever  will  live. 

Now,  Geutlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  between  these  views 
respecting  the  world's  Redeemer  and  those  set  forth  by  the 
Audover  Creed,  by  Consistent  Calviuists  and  Athanasius,  there 
is  a  great  gulf  fixed.  It  is  broad  and  deep.  There  is  no 
passing  from  the  one  side  of  it  to  the  other.  Between  these 
two  classes  of  views,  no  union  or  compromise  is  possible. 
Their  antagonism  is  absolute  aud  eternal.  Yet  the  defendant 
aud  his  progressive  associates  have  promised,  upon  their  honor, 
that  they  would  maintain  and  inculcate  the  sublime  views  set 
forth  by  the  Creed  and  by  Consistent  Calvinism  —  views  which 
exalt  and  glorify  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God.  But,  in  fact,  as  we 
have  shown,  they  are  maintaining  and  inculcating  views  which 
not  only  shockingly  misrepresent  our  Incarnate  Redeemer,  but  also 
defame  Him. 

The  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  were  hospitable  towards 
all  new  light,  but  it  must  be  new  light,  and  not  old  darkness. 
They  avowed  their  own  obligation  to  make  progress  in  knowledge, 
and  they  expected  to  go  on  to  know  their  adorable  Lord  and 
Redeemer  forever  aud  ever,  and  they  expected  all  professors 
and  studeuts  in  their  Seminary  to  do  the  same.  The  self-styled 
progressive  divines,  as  their  very  name  indicates,  are  in  duty 
bound  to  make  progress,  and  they  loudly  proclaim  that  they  are 
doing  so.  But  in  what  direction  are  they  progressing,  forward 
and  upward,  or  backward  and  downward?  Their  last  and  most 
advanced  thought  —  so  far  as  we  know —  respecting  our  Incarnate 
Saviour,  is,  that  He  was  a  mesmerizer!  Now  does  this,  their 
last  advance  iu  knowledge  respecting  our  Redeemer,  indicate 
that  their  boasted  progress  is  forward  and  upward,  or  backward 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


223 


and  downward  ?  Compare  also  the  littleness  and  the  limitations 
of  Christ's  being  and  character  as  set  forth  by  this  last  new  name 
given  Him,  with  the  absolute  infiniteness  and  the  supreme  majesty 
and  glory  of  his  being  and  character  as  set  forth  in  the  adoring 
language  of  Athanasius,  and  tell  us,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of 
Visitors,  which  of  these  contrasted  and  eternally  conflicting  views 
respecting  our  Incarnate  Lord  and  Redeemer  shall  be  maintained 
and  taught  on  these  Andover  Foundations  ? 

8.  This  pantheistic  theory  of  atonement  advocated  by  the 
defendant,  and  held  up  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  as  the  latest 
and  most  advanced  thought  respecting  atonement,  was  well 
known  to  the  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  as  the  theory  main- 
tained in  their  time  by  the  so-called  Rellyan  Universalists. 

Rellyanism. 

We  have  already  given,  under  our  Third  Particular  Complaint, 
an  outline  of  the  history  of  Rellyanism  in  this  country.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  repeat  that  history  here,  but  it  is  needful  that  it  be 
distinctly  recalled  to  mind.  We  did  not  give  a  full  account  of 
Rellyanism,  as  it  lived  and  wrought  in  eastern  Massachusetts  for 
about  forty  years,  from  1770  to  1810,  —  to  do  this  would  require 
a  volume, — but  we  did  give  enough  of  that  strange  history  to 
prove  that,  beyond  question,  the  writers  of  the  Andover  Creed 
and  Statutes,  and  all  the  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary,  were 
perfectly  familiar  with  the  pantheistic  errors  of  Rellyan  Uni- 
versalism. 

Andover  Seminary  was  founded  for  the  purpose  of  preparing 
young  men  for  the  Christian  ministry,  under  the  instruction  of 
professors,  who  should  be  solemnly  pledged  to  maintain  and  incul- 
cate the  doctrines  of  the  Seminary  Creed  and  all  the  other 
doctrines  of  Consistent  Calvinism,  "  in  opposition  to"  thirteen 
specified  classes  of  errorists.  Now  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  of 
these  thirteen  classes  of  errorists,  there  were  two  which  the 
Founders  had  chiefly  in  mind  and  whose  unscriptural  beliefs  they 
wished  especially  to  oppose,  namely,  Unitarians  and  Universal- 
ists. Universalism  had  been  rampant  in  New  England  and  in 
some  other  parts  of  the  country  for  nearly  two  scores  of  years, 
under  the  energetic  lead  of  John  Murray,  "  the  father  of  Uni- 
versalism in  America."    Unitarianism  had  more  recently  asserted 


224 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


itself  by  taking  possession  of  Harvard  College,  which  was  founded 
by  orthodox  men  for  the  service,  not  only  of  good  learning,  but 
of  evangelical  religion,  and  by  electing  a  Unitarian  to  the  Hollis 
Professorship,  which  was  founded  to  maintain  the  orthodox  faith. 
There  was,  therefore,  in  the  judgment  of  large  numbers  of  evan- 
gelical people,  urgent  need  of  a  theological  seminary  whose  teach- 
ing and  influence  should  be  opposed  to  these  two  systems  of  un- 
evangelical  belief.  These  errors  were  no  longer  indefinite,  con- 
cealed, and  unknown:  They  were  now  clearly  defined,  and  the 
unscrupulous  purpose  of  these  errorists  to  get  possession  of  the 
meeting-houses,  vested  funds,  and  other  property  of  evangelical 
churches,  as  well  as  of  evangelical  institutions  of  learning,  was 
beginning  to  be  disclosed. 

Unitarianism. 

The  generous  Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  were  not  igno- 
rant of  Unitarianism.  They  had  definite  knowledge  of  what  it 
was,  and,  for  reasons  satisfactory  to  themselves,  they  so  framed 
their  Creed  and  Statutes  as  to  make  it  forever  impossible  for  an 
honest  man  to  teach  Unitarianism  on  their  foundations.  The 
Seminary  is  now  eighty-five  years  old,  and  during  this  long  period 
no  distinctive  doctrine  or  even  phase  of  Unitarianism  has  been 
taught  by  aid  of  the  trust  funds  provided  by  the  orthodox 
Founders,  until  within  the  last  few  years. 

Rellyan  Universalism. 

Nor  were  the  Founders  ignorant  of  Universalism.  They  had 
defiuite  knowledge  of  it  and  a  decided  opinion  of  its  character 
and  influence.  Gloucester  in  this  State  is  not  far  from  Newbury- 
port.  In  the  latter  town  resided  three  of  the  chief  Founders  of 
Andover  Seminary,  namely,  Dr.  Samuel  Spring,  William  Bartlet, 
and  Moses  Brown.  At  the  time  of  the  founding  of  the  Seminary, 
the  career  of  John  Murray  at  Gloucester  had  become  historic. 
His  methods  of  procedure  were  such  that  officers  of  the  town  had 
ordered  him  to  leave  the  community.  A  pamphlet  had  been  pub- 
lished and  widely  distributed,  giving  a  full  account  not  only  of  his 
dishonorable  aud  divisive  attempts  to  get  possession  of  the  pulpit 
of  the  orthodox  church  during  the  sickness  of  its  pastor,  but  also 
of  some  of  the  peculiar,  Uuiversalistic  beliefs  which  he  held  and 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


225 


preached.  On  account  of  these  historic  occurrences  at  Gloucester, 
and  others  like  them  in  other  places,  all  well-informed  people  in 
New  England  had  come  to  have  a  definite  knowledge  of  Murray, 
of  his  personality,  of  his  methods,  and  of  his  beliefs.  The  man 
himself  and  his  Rellyan  Universalism  had  been  publicly  and 
privately  discussed  throughout  the  Eastern  and  Middle  States. 
Moreover,  at  the  time  Andover  Seminary  was  founded,  several 
editions  of  Relly's  " Union"  had  been  published  in  this  country 
and  had  been  rapidly  and  widely  distributed.  Dr.  Samuel  Hop- 
kins, Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  the  younger,  Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons, 
and  other  Consistent  Calvinists  had  publicly  and  severely  criti- 
cized the  doctrines  of  the  book.  Probably  there  was  not,  at  that 
time,  an  intelligent  Christian  minister  in  any  of  the  religious  de- 
nominations in  New  England  who  did  not  know  what  Rellyanism 
was.  Wherever  Murray  went  there  was  a  tempest.  All  the 
Founders  of  Andover  Seminary  had  been,  through  the  larger  part 
of  their  lives,  in  the  more  central  part  of  the  battle  between 
evangelical  faith  and  Rellyan  Universalism.  Did  they  forget 
this  strenuous  and  persistent  error  when  they  were  laying  the 
foundations  of  their  theological  seminary  ?  Impossible.  Murray, 
though  an  old  man,  was  still  preaching  in  Boston.  The  evidence 
is  abundant  that  they  had  Rellyanism  distinctly  in  mind  when 
they  were  deciding  what  should  and  what  should  not  be  taught 
in  their  theological  institution.  Any  man  to-day  who  has  only 
a  general  knowledge  of  Rellyanism  can  see,  upon  even  a  cur- 
sory examination  of  the  language  of  the  Founders,  that  they 
designed]^  so  framed  their  Creed  and  Statutes  as  to  make  it  for- 
ever impossible  for  any  honest  man  to  hold  and  teach  any  form 
of  Universalism,  and  especially  Rellyan  Universalism,  on  their 
Foundations.  And  it  is  an  historic  fact,  that  no  form  or  phase  of 
Universalism  ever  has  been  held  and  taught  by  professors  sup- 
ported by  the  Andover  trust-funds,  until  recently.  Within  the 
last  few  years,  a  so-called  "  new  theology,"  named  by  the  defend- 
ant and  his  associates  '•'•Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  has  been  forced 
into  the  Seminary.  This  so-called  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  the 
complainants  claim,  is  essentially  Rellyan  Universalism.  Under 
our  Third  Particular  Complaint  we  have  shown  conclusively,  as  we 
believe,  that  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is,  in  its  vital  and  central 
principle  and  largely  in  its  development,  Rellyan  Universalism. 


226 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


We  propose  now  to  present  still  further  evidence  and  argument 
in  support  of  this  position  by  showing  that  the  theory  of  atone- 
ment set  forth  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  identical  with  the 
theory  advocated  by  Rellvan  Universalism. 

The  Rellyan  Theory  of  Atonement  the  Theory  of 
"  Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

(a)  According  to  Rellyanism,  the  very  heart  and  life  of  the 
atonement  is  the  asserted  verity  that  the  entire  human  race  was 
with  Christ  and  in  Him  when  He  was  offered  up  in  sacrifice  upon 
the  cross.  He  and  the  race  constituted  one  person.  The  race 
was  an  essential  part  of  the  very  being  of  Christ.  It  was  the  ful- 
ness of  Christ.  Christ  would  not  have  been  complete  without 
the  race.  If  a  single  member  of  the  race  had  not  been  vitally 
united  to  Him,  Christ  would  have  been  an  imperfect,  defective 
Christ.  Speaking  of  the  members  of  the  human  body,  Relly 
says  :  — 

Take  away  the  members  and  there  will  remain  no  body ;  take  a  few, 
yea  one  only  away,  and  the  body  is  not  perfect ;  deny  the  proportion- 
able perfection  of  any  one  of  these  members,  and  then  the  symmetry  of 
the  body  is  destroyed.  So  also  is  Christ;  take  away  the  people  [that 
is,  the  human  race],  or  deny  that  they  were  united  to  their  Head  Jesus 
at  some  certain  time,  then  was  there  at  that  time  no  Christ.  Or  if  all 
the  Church  [all  men]  were  not  united  to  Him,  but  some  particular  mem- 
ber, or  members,  stood  at  any  time  unrelated  to  him ;  then  was  he  not 
&  perfect  Christ  at  that  time.1 

Such,  according  to  Rellyanism,  was  the  vital  union  of  Christ 
with  every  human  being  when  Christ  hung  upon  the  cross.  This 
union  is  the  absolute,  pantheistic  oneness  of  Christ  and  the 
human  race. 

But  this  is  also  the  teaching  of  the  Andover  progressives. 
"  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  in  all  its  discussion  of  the  atonement, 
attaches  supreme  significance  to  the  alleged  verity  that  the  entire 
human  race  was  with  and  in  Christ  when  He  hung  upon  the  cross, 
as  has  been  abundantly  shown. 

(&)  Rellyanism  represents  that  this  vital  union  of  all  men  with 
Christ  imparts  to  them  great  power,  dignity,  and  honor,  and  that 
on  account  of  this  betterment  of  men  God  regards  them  as  having 

•Unicm.p.  34. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


227 


augmented  importance  and  value,  and,  irrespective  of  their 
moral  character,  is  propitiated  and  reconciled  to  them,  and  bestows 
upon  them  special  love  and  favor.  Rellyanists  speak  of  the  vital 
union  of  the  human  race  with  Christ  as  "this  mysterious,  this 
ennobling,  this  soul-satisfying  Union,"  and  often  represent,  that 
even  the  most  wicked  members  of  the  race  stand  high  in  God's 
estimation,  in  spite  of  their  wickedness,  on  account  of  their  vital 
relation  to  Christ.  Relly  holds  that  all  men  alike  are  loved  of 
the  Father,  because  they  and  Christ  constitute  one  person.  He 
remarks  :  — 

Thus  considering  him  [Christ]  as  the  Head  of  his  Body  the  Church, 
[which  is  the  human  race],  we  give  Him  the  pre-eminence,  as  immedi- 
ately receiving  all  Grace  and  Glory  from  the  Father ;  which  honour  all 
the  members,  as  united  to  him  the  Head,  must  necessarily  partake  of  in 
Him.1 

"All  the  members,"  then,  all  human  beings,  as  united  to  Christ 
their  Head,  do  now  partake  of  all  his  honor  and  glory,  and  God 
must  look  upon  them  as  having,  irrespective  of  their  moral  charac- 
ter, a  vastly  augmented  importance  and  value  on  account  of  their 
vital  union  with  Christ.    Such  is  the  teaching  of  Rellyanism. 

But  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  presents  substantially  the  same 
view.    Take  the  following  statements  :  — 

One  view  of  atonement  is  gained  by  considering  the  historical  Christ 
in  relation  to  humanity  and  as  identified  with  it ;  in  which  view  we  see 
that  the  race  of  men  with  Christ  in  it  is  essentially  different  in  fact,  and 
therefore  in  the  sight  of  God,  from  the  same  race  without  Christ 
in  it.  .  .  . 

Humanity  may  thus  be  thought  of  as  offering  something  to  God  of 
eminent  value.3 

These  statements  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  many 
others,  represent,  that  the  entire  human  race,  by  its  organic  and 
vital  union  with  Christ,  without  any  change  whatever  in  its  moral 
character,  has  received  various  kinds  of  powers  and  dignities,  of 
which  powers  and  dignities  it  was  previously  wholly  destitute,  and 
so  has  attained  an  importance,  a  respectability,  and  an  eminent 
value  in  the  sight  of  God  which  it  did  not  have  before,  and  on 
account  of  this  eminent  respectability  and  value  thus  imparted  to 
the  whole  race,  God  is  propitiated  and  reconciled  to  all  men,  and 

1  Union,  p.  39.      2  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  52,  53. 


228 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


consequently  all  men,  fallen  and  sinful  as  they  are,  and  previous 
to  any  repentance  or  faith  on  their  part,  are  freely  and  fully  for- 
given and  justified  of  God. 

This  is  not  the  place,  nor  have  we  the  time,  to  characterize  ade- 
quately this  kind  of  atonement.  But  the  point  we  now  make  and 
emphasize  is  that  this  theory  of  atonement  set  forth  in  "  Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy,"  and  now  maintained  and  inculcated  by  the 
defendant  and  his  progressive  associates  on  the  Andover  Founda- 
tions, is  identically  that  theory  of  atonement  which  constitutes  an 
essential  part  of  Rellyan  Universalism.  And  it  is  for  the  Board 
of  Visitors  to  decide,  whether  Rellyan  Universalism  can  be  de- 
fended and  taught  by  any  professor  in  Andover  Seminary,  even 
with  the  permission  and  aid  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  without  a 
criminal  violation  of  most  solemn  promises  and  engagements,  a 
gigantic  breach  of  trust  on  the  part  of  the  Trustees,  and  also  on 
the  part  of  both  Trustees  and  professors,  a  most  extraordinary 
disregard,  and  an  utter  avoidance  of  the  true  intention  of  the 
Founders  of  the  Seminary,  as  expressed  in  their  Constitution  and 
Statutes. 

(c)  But  the  identity  of  the  Rellyan  theory  of  atonement  with 
that  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  further  and  clearly  disclosed 
in  the  fact,  that  both  of  these  theologies  persistently  maintain 
that  Christ  was  not  "  alone  "  when  He  was  offered  in  atoning  sac- 
rifice on  the  cross.  All  evangelical  Christians  from  time  immemo- 
rial have  believed  in  and  emphasized  the  aloneness  of  our  Re- 
deemer in  his  sufferings  and  death.  In  Isaiah  63  :  3,  5,  Jehovah 
is  represented  as  saying,  "  I  have  trodden  the  wine-press  alone; 
and  of  the  people  there  was  none  with  me.  .  .  .  And  I  looked 
and  there  was  none  to  help  ;  and  I  wondered  that  there  was  none 
to  uphold  ;  therefore  mine  own  arm  brought  salvation  unto  me." 
These  graphic  and  pathetic  words  of  Jehovah  doubtless  have  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  passion  of  our  Lord.  Yet  by  way  of 
accommodation  they  have  often  been  used  as  vividly  expressive  of 
what  has  always  been  the  belief  of  evangelical  Christendom 
respecting  the  aloneness  of  the  Redeemer,  when  with  none  to  help 
Him  He  bore  the  world's  burden  of  sin  and  guilt  on  the  cross. 

But  both  Rellyanism  and  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  plainly  con- 
tradict the  general  historic  belief  of  the  Christian  Church  upon 
this  point,  and  dogmatically  declare  that  our  Lord  was  not  alone 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


229 


in  his  atoning  sacrifice  on  Calvary,  but  that  the  entire  human  race 
was  with  Him  and  in  Him  as  a  constituent  part  of  his  person, 
when  He  suffered  and  died  for  the  sins  of  all  men. 

Rellyanism,  indeed,  affirms  that,  without  this  vital  union  of 
the  race  with  the  atoning  Saviour,  his  sufferings  and  death  would 
have  been  unjust  and  cruel.    Relly  asserts  that:  — 

it  doth  not  appear  how  God  from  a  principle  of  mercy  and  peace 
towards  Mankind,  could  punish  sin  upon  Christ,  without  the  concur- 
rence of  Righteousness  and  Truth ;  nor  can  this  concurrence  or  har- 
mony be  proved ;  without  Union  between  Christ  and  those  for  whom  he 
endured  the  Cross,  and  dispised  the  shame. 

First.  Because,  contrary  to  Truth,  which  declareth,  .  .  .  that  the 
sinner  shall  die  for  his  own  sin ;  and  that  the  righteous  shall  not 
suffer.  .  .  .  This  is  the  language  of  Truth;  one  jot  or  tittle  of  which 
shall  not  fail,  though  Heaven  and  Earth  should  pass  away.  Therefore, 
such  an  Union  or  relation  between  Christ  and  his  Church  [the  human 
race],  as  gives  Him  the  right  of  redemption,  and  brings  Him  under  that 
Character  which  is  obnoxious  to  punishment,  is  absolutely  necessary, 
that  His  sufferings  for  sin  might  accord  with  the  declarations  and  de- 
mands of  truth. 

Secondly.  It  is  contrary  to  Justice  to  afflict  the  Innocent :  to  punish 
and  destroy  him  is  cruelty  and  injustice.  Without  the  consideration  of 
Union,  where  is  the  Justice  of  charging  the  black  rebellion,  and  crying 
guilt  of  Man,  upon  the  pure  and  spotless  Head  of  Jesus?  .  .  .  Sin  is  not 
only  a  Debt,  for  which  suretyship  is  sometimes  admitted,  but  a  Trans- 
gression, a  Crime,  capital  in  the  highest  sense,  only  atoned  for  by  the 
shedding  of  Blood ;  by  the  Death,  yea,  by  the  eternal  Death  of  the  Sin- 
ner; which  Justice  must  inflict  before  it  can  be  properly  satisfied;  nor 
can  it  possibly  admit  of  a  Surety  here,  because  it  can  only  punish  him 
whom  it  first  finds  guilty ;  and  that  not  by  reckoning  him  to  be  what  he 
is  not,  according  to  human  quibbles ;  but  according  to  artless,  reason- 
able, divine  Equity,  which  can  only  declare  such  guilty,  on  whom  the 
fault  is  found,  and  can  only  find  the  fault  on  such  who  have  committed 
it.  We  only  committed  the  fault,  upon  Us  only  can  it  be  found.  There- 
fore without  such  an  Union  between  Christ  and  us,  as  exposes  us,  in  his 
person,  to  Judgment  and  Condemnation,  the  harmony  of  the  divine 
perfections  doth  not  appear  in  the  things  which  he  suffered,  because 
contrary  to  Truth  and  Justice. 

Again,  it  is  contrary  to  Mercy,  as  Mercy  may  not,  consistent  with  its 
own  nature,  trespass  the  limits  of  Truth  and  Justice.  But  if  Jesus 
suffered  for  sin,  without  such  an  Union  to  the  Sinner  as  made  his  suffer- 
ings and  Blood  to  be  regarded  as  that  of  the  offender,  though  there  be 
an  appearance  of  mercy  towards  us,  there  is  a  great  lack  of  it  towards 
Him,  who  suffered  for  sin  unjustly  charged  upon  him.    Such  is  not  the 


230 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


nature  of  infinite  Goodness,  to  show  mercy  to  one  through  injustice  to 
another:  But  if  united  to  the  Sinner  there  is  a  consistency,  yea,  a 
Divine  Equity  in  His  sufferings.1 

Now  all  this  explanation  of  what  is  alleged  to  have  been  ac- 
complished by  the  union  of  all  men  with  Christ  on  the  cross 
shows  how  absolutely  indispensable  it  is,  in  maintaining  the 
Rellyan  theory  of  atonement,  to  prove  that  Christ  was  not  alone 
in  his  sufferings  and  death.  For  if,  in  fact,  He  was  alone  on  the 
cross,  and  there  suffered  and  died  in  the  room  of,  or  instead  of,  all 
men,  and  not  with  and  in  them,  then  all  support  of  the  Rellyan 
theory  of  atonement  is  destroyed,  and  the  whole  theory  falls  to 
the  ground. 

As  Christ  is  in  Condition,  Act,  and  Character,  so  are 
all  Men. 

But  again,  while  Rellyanism  claims  that  this  pantheistic  union 
of  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God  with  the  entire  human  race  made 
it  perfectly  just  and  equitable  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  as  members 
of  his  body,  to  be  visited  upon  Him  as  their  Head,  it  also  claims, 
that  by  this  same  union  all  men  are  made  to  share  involuntarily  in 
all  that  Christ  is  or  does  ;  made  to  partake,  without  any  volition 
of  their  own,  in  all  Christ's  condition  and  experiences,  on  the 
cross  and  everywhere  else  ;  made  to  repent,  believe,  and  obey  in 
his  perfect  repentance,  faith,  and  obedience  ;  and  even  while  per- 
sisting in  their  sins,  and  before  ever  they  have  fulfilled  one  of 
those  conditions  of  salvation  prescribed  in  the  gospel,  made  per- 
fectly righteous  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ  their  Head,  and 
crowned  with  all  his  honors  and  glories.  Rellyanism  affirms  that 
man  of  himself  has  no  power  of  any  kind  to  obey  the  command- 
ments of  the  decalogue,  or  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  (Citations 
in  proof  of  this  statement  may  be  found  under  our  Third  Particu- 
lar Charge.)  But  Rellyanism  also  affirms  that  all  men,  through 
their  organic  and  vital  union  with  Christ  their  Head,  do,  in  his 
perfect  obedience,  themselves  render  an  absolutely  perfect  obedi- 
ence to  all  the  commandments  of  the  law  and  the  gospel,  although 
at  the  same  time  they  are  fully  conscious  of  continuing  in  the  life 
and  love  of  sin,  and  conscious  too  of  their  own  helplessness  to 

1  Union,  pp.  4-8. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


231 


live  a  fife  of  righteousness.  These  views  are  expressed  in  the 
following  language  of  Relly  :  — 

if  this  Church  [that  is,  this  human  race],  as  united  to  Christ,  is  not  per- 
fect, according  to  the  perfection  of  beauty,  in  Righteousness,  Holyness, 
Wisdom,  and  so  forth,  then  is  Christ  deficient  in  those  particulars: 
which  to  affirm  will  be  agreed  upon  by  all  his  worshipers  to  be  blas- 
phemy. From  hence  we  may  infer,  that  whatever  Jesus  was,  whatever 
He  did,  suffered,  or  now  is,  under  the  Character  Christ,  the  people,  as  the 
fullness  of  him  who  filleth  all  in  all,  are  not  excluded ;  but  to  be  consid- 
ered with  him,  and  in  him,  in  the  same  circumstances,  and  condition, 
through  every  dispensation.1 

Of  similar  import  is  the  following  statement :  — 

From  hence  it  is  evident,  that  the  Union  between  Christ  and  the  People 
was  such  (as  Head  and  Members  in  one  Body)  that  they  were  with  Him, 
and  in  Him,  in  his  Birth,  his  Life,  his  Death,  Resurrection  and  Glory. 
Therefore  his  Sufferings,  Wars,  and  Triumphs,  all  are  theirs.  And  they 
have  a  right  from  this,  to  rejoice  in  Him ;  in  what  He  has  done,  in  what 
He  is,  and  in  the  acceptance  He  hath  found  with  the  Father ;  and  that, 
over  all  the  weakness,  and  vanity  they  perceive  in  themselves.2 

On  anotner  page  Relly  breaks  out  in  such  exultant  language  as 
the  following  :  — 

And  O,  what  grace  is  this!  that  we  helpless  worms,  whose  every 
word,  work  and  thought  is  unholy,  yea  in  whom  according  to  the 
strongest  testimony  of  our  senses  and  reason,  there  is  yet  found  the 
motions,  life  and  love  of  sin,  should  have  a  right  to  reckon  ourselves 
dead  unto  sin ;  dead  unto  what  we  yet  feel  the  life  of,  dead  unto  what 
we  yet  feel  the  love  of,  dead  unto  what  is  yet  stronger  than  we,  and 
against  which  our  utmost  efforts  when  compared  with  its  strength  are 
feebleness  itself;  it  esteems  all  our  Iron  as  straw,  and  our  Brass  as 
rotten  wood;  and  yet  to  reckon  ourselves  dead  unto  this,  what  an  amaz- 
ing reckoning  it  is!  Yea,  not  only  dead  unto  sin,  whereby  we  are 
exempt  from  its  filth,  guilt  and  condemnation;  but  we  are  to  reckon 
ourselves  positively  Holy,  Righteous  and  fruitful,  Alive  unto  God  !  and 
that  in  Opposition  to  all  we  see,  feel  or  understand  of  ourselves,  accord- 
ing to  sense.  .  .  .  Hence  we  have  authority  to  conclude,  if  he  is  right- 
eous, we  are  righteous ;  as  He  we  are  holy ;  as  He  we  are  wise ;  as  He 
we  have  obtained  redemption,  and  are  accepted  with  Him.  .  .  .  We 
would  always  believe  in  hope,  in  hope  of  his  being  accepted,  of  God's 
being  well  pleased  in  him,  and  of  our  being  accepted,  and  well-pleasing 
as  him,  by  the  Grace  of  Union  with  him.  .  .  .  Our  right  and  priviledge 
is  to  judge  of  ourselves  and  of  our  state  towards  God,  by  Union  with 

i  Union,  pp.  34,  35.      =  Ibid.  p.  42. 


232 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


Christ :  By  the  Father's  choice  of  him,  His  choice  of  us;  by  his  love  to 
him,  his  love  unto  us;  by  his  acceptance  of  him,  his  acceptance  of  us; 
by  his  eternal  life  and  glory,  our  eternal  life  aud  glory;  and  all  this, 
■without  once  considering  the  work  of  our  own  hands,  or  the  desires, 
yearnings,  or  meditations  of  our  Hearts.  .  .  .  But  unto  all  the  Gentiles, 
the  outcasts,  the  destitute,  the  Sinners  amongst  Mankind,  with  all  who 
know  themselves,  and  groan  beneath  the  miseries  of  man,  here  are 
tidings  of  great  Joy.  There  is  a  Saviour  born  unto  you,  a  Saviour  who 
is  Christ  the  Lord;  and  what  is  more,  tho'  you  are  worthless,  He  is 
worthy.  Though  you  are  lost,  He  is  found ;  though  you  are  unright- 
eous, unholy,  unwise,  yet  He  is  Righteous,  Holy,  Wise,  and  withall  so 
nearly  related,  so  closely  united  unto  you,  that  you  may  Reckon  your- 
selves to  be  what  he  is,  and  viewing  him  as  yourselves  through  all  He  did 
and  suffered,  have  your  conscience  purged  from  Dead  works,  stand 
washed,  and  acquitted  in  his  Bloody  Death,  and  have  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience  towards  God,  by  his  resurrection.1 

Immorality  of  Rellyanism. 

This  is  saying  to  all  men,  even  to  the  most  wicked  and  aban- 
doned of  men,  "  You  need  not  be  troubled  on  account  of  your 
sins.  You  may  be  profoundly  conscious  that  you  are  plunging 
deeper  and  deeper  into  wickedness,  and  are  waxing  worse  and 
worse.  But  what  of  it?  Fear  not.  You  have  no  occasion  to  be 
troubled,  or  to  tremble  in  dread  of  the  tilings  that  are  coming. 
Throw  off  all  conviction  of  sin.  You  have  no  need  to  bear  any 
burden  of  guilt  on  your  soul,  still  less  of  remorse  and  despair. 
For  even  while  you  are  sinning,  you  are  in  Christ  aud  Christ  is  in 
you.  The  entire  human  race  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and  each  one 
of  you  is  a  member  of  that  body,  aud  can  no  more  perish  than 
Christ  can  perish.  Moreover,  you  were  with  and  in  Christ  Jesus 
in  his  sufferings  and  death  on  the  cross,  and  there  with  Him  made 
full  atonement  for  all  your  sins.  And  what  is  more  and  better 
still,  in  your  vital  union  with  Christ  you  have  a  right  to  regard 
Him  as  your  very  self,  and  yourself  as  being  what  He  is,  and  as 
doing  what  He  does,  and  as  experiencing  what  He  experiences, 
in  all  his  conditions,  acts,  sufferings,  joys,  and  honors.  You  of 
yourself  have  no  power  to  repent,  or  believe,  or  obey  ;  but  in 
union  with  Christ  you  have  already  offered  to  God  a  perfect  re- 
pentance, faith,  and  obedience.  Sin  as  much  as  you  may,  con- 
scious as  you  may  be  of  having  in  you  '  the  motions,  life,  and 

1  Union,  pp.  88-91. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


233 


love  of  sin,'  yet,  'so  nearly  related  to  Christ,  so  closely  united' 
and  identified  with  Him  are  you,  that  you  may  view  Him  as 
yourself,  and  reckon  yourself  to  be  perfectly  righteous  in  his 
righteousness." 

Now  most  men,  however  wicked  they  may  be,  if  addressed  in 
this  manner  would  naturally  ask:  "Is  this  doctrine  you  are 
preaching  true?  Is  it  the  very  word  of  God?  Can  we  trust  in  it 
as  the  veritable  revelation  and  gospel  of  Christ?"  "  Yes,"  Relly 
would  answer.  But  we  would  reply,  "  Everything  depends  upon 
the  answer  that  must  be  given  to  another  question."  That  ques- 
tion is  this  :  Was  Christ  Jesus  alone  in  his  sufferings  and  death  on 
the  cross,  or  did  He  have  "  with  Him  and  in  Him"  the  entire 
human  race?  If  He  was  alone  in  his  great  atoning  sacrifice,  and 
no  member  of  the  race  was  "  with  Him  and  in  Him  "  in  his  pas- 
sion and  death,  then  the  whole  system  of  Rellyan  beliefs  breaks 
down,  and  the  whole  Rellyan  gospel,  like  so  much  mist  or  smoke, 
vanishes  into  nothing.  Now,  that  there  ever  was  such  a  union  of 
the  eternal  Son  of  God  with  the  entire  human  race  as  makes  all 
men  with  Him  one  person,  all  having  only  one  common  life,  we 
venture  to  affirm,  has  never  yet  been  proved  from  Revelation  or 
from  reason.  But  it  has  been  and  is  the  common  belief  of  the 
Christian  Church  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  "  only  Redeemer"  of  men,  and  that  He,  "  and  He  alone, 
by  his  sufferings  and  death,"  has  procured  redemption  for  all 
men  who  repent  of  their  sins  and  believe  on  Him. 

John  Murray. 

The  Rellyan  views  presented  in  the  citations  which  we  have  just 
made  from  James  Relly  were  also  heartily  accepted  by  John 
Murray,  and  were  the  staple  of  his  preaching.  This  will  be  indi- 
cated by  a  few  passages  from  his  writiugs.    Murray  remarks:  — 

The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die,  says  the  prophet,  .  .  .  and  as  God 
declared  he  would  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty,  this  sentence  of  death  has 
been  fully  executed  on  every  man.  .  .  .  Jesus  came  to  fulfil  this  law, 
yea,  every  jot,  and  tittle  thereof ;  therefore  he  died  once  for  all.  .  .  . 
Thus  God,  instead  of  clearing  the  guilty,  exacted  the  uttermost  farthing; 
hence  he  is  a  just  God,  and  a  Saviour :  hence  he  is  just  in  justifying  the 
ungodly;  and  hence  also  appears  the  justice  of  God  in  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  him,  who,  in  himself,  detached  from  the  race  of  Adam, 
was  pure  and  undefiled,  perfectly  sinless.   But,  it  should  be  remembered, 


234 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


Christ  is  the  head  of  every  man ;  the  individuals  of  the  lost  nature  con- 
stitute the  aggregate  of  our  Lord's  mystical  body ;  the  comprehensive 
term  union  is  the  key  by  which  we  unlock  this  mystery,  the  head  and 
members  are  united,  and  the  iniquity  of  the  members  is  visited  upon  the 
head.  In  any  other  view  that  law,  which  is  holy,  just  and  good,  could 
not  have  condemned  to  death  an  immaculate  being;  there  would  be  as 
much  injustice  in  punishing  the  innocent,  as  in  clearing  the  guilty ;  but  I 
repeat,  our  Almighty  Saviour  was  the  head  of  the  lost  nature,  and  he 
became  accountable  for  the  sins  committed  by  the  members  of  his  body. 
.  .  .  Thus  then,  in  this  stupendous  connection,  bearing  the  sins  of  his 
body,  it  became  divinely  just  that  he  should  suffer  the  death,  that  the 
punishment  should  follow  the  offence;  but  if  it  were  just  to  inflict  the 
penalty  of  death  upon  Jesus  Christ  for  our  sins,  then  it  becomes  just 
that  we  should  live  through  him;  hence,  as  he  died  for  us  that  whether 
we  wake  or  sleep  we  should  be  the  Lord's,  so  he  is  now  our  life,  and 
when  he  who  is  our  life  shall  appear,  then  shall  we  appear  with  him  in 
glory.  Now,  therefore,  may  every  soul  that  hath  sinned,  say  with  the 
Apostle  Paul,  who  styled  himself  the  chief  of  sinners,  "  O  death,  where  is 
thy  sting?  O  grave,  where  is  thy  victory?  The  sting  of  death  is  sin," 
but  we  behold  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.1 

Nor  was  it  simply  in  his  life,  sufferings,  and  death,  but  also  in 
every  other  condition  of  his,  that  Christ  Jesus  was  in  vital  union 
with  the  entire  human  race.    Murray  teaches  that 

The  human  nature  of  Emmanuel  is  part  of  every  child's  flesh;  and 
ever}-  human  soul  inhabiting  a  tenement  of  flesh  has  as  much  right  to 
left  his  adoring  eye  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  part  of  himself,  as  any  member 
of  my  body  might,  if  it  had  sense  in  itself,  claim  my  head  as  a  part  of 
itself.  Jesus  is  not  flesh  and  bone,  distinct  from  our  flesh  and  bone, 
but  he  is  flesh  of  our  flesh,  and  bone  of  our  bone.  For  both  he  who 
sanctifietli,  and  they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one.  And  this  is  at  all 
times  the  comprehensive  character  of  the  Redeemer,  insomuch  that 
when  he  was  born  without  sin,  we  were  in  that  eventful  moment  created 
anew  in  Christ  Jesus;  when  he  was  crucified,  we  were  crucified  with 
Christ  Jesus;  when  he  died  we  were  buried  by  baptism  into  his  death; 
and  when  he  arose,  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  that  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  .  .  .  And  we  as- 
cended with  Christ,  being  heirs  of  God  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ.2 

Murray,  as  well  as  Relly,  held  that  Christ  and  the  entire  human 
race  constitute  "  one  Son  of  Man,"  one  "  life  or  soul,"  one  univer- 
sal person,  so  that  every  human  being's  life  is  one  with  the  life 
of  Christ,  and  his  righteousness  one  with  the  perfect  righteousness 

1  Letters  and  Sketches  o£  Sermons,  by  John  Murray,  vol.  i,  pp.  44-46.  2  Ibid.  p.  255. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


235 


of  Christ.  The  communion  bread,  as  composed  of  many  grains 
of  wheat,  Murray  uses  as  an  illustration.  The  grains  of  wheat, 
he  says, 

being  all  collected  together,  are  together  ground,  together  leavened  with 
one  leaven,  together  baked  in  one  oven,  and  being  brought  forth  in  one 
piece  of  bread,  "This,"  says  the  Kedeemer,  "is  my  body."  My  body 
is  not  a  single  grain,  but  it  is  all  the  harvest  collected.  It  pleased  the 
Father,  that  in  him  all  fulness  should  dwell.  Thus  the  fulness  of  the  hu- 
man nature  was  in  the  God-man,  and  as  the  many  grains  of  wheat  con- 
stituted one  piece  of  bread,  so  the  many  children  of  men  made  one  Son 
of  man,  the  many  bodies  one  body ;  and  as  all  the  grains  of  wheat,  what- 
ever their  appearance  while  growing  in  their  natural  state,  partake  in 
this  bread  the  same  condition;  so  the  whole  lump  in  the  second  Adam, 
partakes  of  one  life,  one  righteousness.  .  .  . 

As  the  many  grapes  being  pressed  together,  after  they  are  all  gath- 
ered into  one  vat,  make  one  cup  of  wine,  so  the  many  lives,  or  souls  of 
all  the  ruined  race,  all  gathered  into  one,  is  what  Jesus  calls  his  soul. 
...  As  these  grapes  grew  on  the  vines  in  their  natural  state,  there  was 
a  very  visible  difference,  some  large  and  some  small,  some  filled  with 
refreshing  juice  and  some  nearly  dry;  but  looking  with  a  single  eye  to 
this  cup,  or  to  the  substance  of  this  figure,  the  life  or  soul  of  Jesus 
Christ,  we  find  all  distinctions  completely  swallowed  up,  precisely  as  in 
the  bread  or  body.  .  . 

Now  what  is  a  communion,  but  a  gathering  together?  the  Apostle 
therefore  teaches  us,  that  as  the  bread  we  break  is  the  gathering  to- 
gether of  the  multitude  of  grains,  and  the  cup  of  wine  the  gathering 
together  of  the  multitude  of  grapes;  so  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  gathering  together  of  the  many  who  were  lost  by  the  trans- 
gression of  the  first,  and  by  this  wonderful  method  recovered  in  the 
second  Adam.1 

Every  Man  a  "Legal  Heir"  op  the  Life  Everlasting. 

Murray  went  so  far  as  to  claim,  that  every  sinner,  irrespective 
of  his  own  character,  or  of  any  obedience  of  his  own,  has  a  legal 
right  to  Christ's  righteousness,  and  to  everlasting  life  as  the 
reward  of  that  righteousness,  and  that  this  legal  right  of  every 
sinner  is  grounded  solely  on  his  organic  and  vital  union  with 
Christ.    In  a  letter  to  a  friend  he  says  •  — 

In  the  fulness  of  time  the  second  Adam  made  his  appearance :  when 
the  law  spoke  to  him,  and  to  us  also  in  him,  had  he  failed,  we  should 
have  been  totally  ruined ;  but  he  having  suffered  the  punishment  due  to 

1  Letters  and  Sketches  ol'  Sermons,  by  John  Murray,  vol.  i,  pp.  235-237 


236 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


our  transgressions,  delivered  us  from  death,  and  having  fulfilled  all 
righteousness  for  us,  we  became  legal  heirs  of  everlasting  life.  .  .  . 

Yes,  truly,  mankind  are  as  much  entitled  to  eternal  life,  through  what 
Jesus  Christ  has  performed  and  suffered,  as  if  every  individual  had  thus 
in  his  own  proper  person  performed  and  suffered.1 

"We  are  thus  "  entitled"  however  consciously  sinful  we  may  be, 
to  look  upon  ourselves  as  perfectly  righteous,  because,  according 
to  Murray, 

When  we  behold  Christ  Jesus,  we  behold  ourselves,  for  he  is  the  head 
of  every  man.  In  him  dwelleth  all  fulness.  In  Christ  Jesus  both  Jew 
and  Gentile  constitute  one  new  man.2 

All  this  is  thoroughgoiug  Rellyanism. 

Knowledge  of  Christ,  Man's  Supreme  Need. 

Murray  also,  as  well  as  Relly,  held  and  taught,  that  the  su- 
preme present  need  of  every  man  is  to  know  of  this  alleged  verity 
of  his  own  vital  and  imperishable  union  with  Christ. 

All  men,  according  to  Murray,  are  redeemed  from  the  curse  of 
the  law  and  are  saved  from  the  wrath  of  God  by  their  union 
with  Christ.  But  they  do  not  know  or  believe  this,  and  therefore 
live  in  mental  fear  and  torment.    He  says :  — 

I  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  death  and  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ  have 
taken  away  the  sting  of  death,  and  rendered  it  a  blessing  to  mankind ; 
But  that  they  will  never  see  it  so  until  they  believe  the  gospel,  which 
bringeth  life  and  immortality  to  light;  and  that  although  Jesus,  by  his 
death,  redeemed  them  from  that  death  which  is  called  the  curse  of  the 
law,  yet  nevertheless,  so  long  as  they  are  ignorant  of  this,  so  long  they 
are  children  of  wrath,  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destructions,  and  the 
wrath  of  God  apparently  abideth  on  them;  but  yet  they  are  saved  from 
wrath  through  their  Redeemer,  and  sooner  or  later  they  shall  be  made 
acquainted  with  this  truth.3 

Murray  usually  speaks  of  the  condemuation  of  sinners  as 
merely  their  own  self-condemnation,  their  remorse  of  conscience; 
and  he  teaches  that  they  can  be  saved  from  this  inward  torment 
only  by  a  knowledge  of  the  Relly  an  theory  of  salvation,  or 
of  the  inclusion  of  all  men  in  the  person  of  Christ.  Speak- 
ing of  the  sinner  who  is  "  miserable  from  the  knowledge  of  his 
unrighteousness,"  and  because  he  is  "  convinced  that  without 

1  Letters  anil  Sketches,  vol.  ii,  p.  312.      'Ibid,  vol.  in,  p.  liu.      Jibid.  vol.  i,  p.  313. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


237 


holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,"  he  points  out  the  following 
method  of  giving  him  consolation  :  — 

When  the  gospel  is  preached  to  him,  assuring  him  that  Jesus  is  made 
unto  him  sanctification,  that  this  great  High  Priest  wears  on  his  head,  for 
us,  holiness  to  the  Lord,  and  that  we  are  authorized  to  view  that  head, 
thus  adorned,  as  our  head,  hearing  that  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ, 
and  the  head  of  Christ  is  God,  —  when  these  divine  gospel  truths  are 
heard  and  believed,  he  is  completely  saved  from  condemnation  or 
damnation.1 

This  preacher  of  Rellyanism  taught,  that  if  men  die  without 
knowledge  of  the  Rellyan  gospel,  they  will  experience  nothing 
but  misery  in  the  next  world,  until  they  have  knowledge  of  and 
belief  in  that  gospel.  In  his  view  the  unbeliever  is  not  simply 
the  man  who  does  not  trust  in  Christ  for  forgiveness  and  the  life 
everlasting,  but  he  is  the  man  who  does  not  believe  the  Rellyan 
gospel  with  its  pantheistic  doctrine  of  the  inclusion  of  the  entire 
human  race  in  the  person  of  Christ.  The  following  are  his 
words : — 

Yes,  undoubtedly,  the  unbeliever  at  his  death  bids  adieu  to  every 
source  of  consolation ;  and  not  informed  that  he  has  redemption  in  the 
Beloved,  and  that  God  can  be  a  just  God  and  a  Saviour,  he  feels  ten 
thousand  deaths  in  fearing  one ;  and  this  misery  shall  continue  until  the 
people  are  all  taught  of  God,  until  the  face  of  the  covering  shall  be 
removed,  and  the  veil  taken  from  all  nations,  and  death  swallowed  up 
in  victory.5 

All  men,  according  to  the  Rellyan  view,  are  saved,  but  they  do 
not  all  knoiv  that  they  are  saved.  Their  ignorance  of  their  own 
salvation  is  their  misery.  In  this  view,  the  sinner's  probation  is 
not  opportunity  to  repent  of  his  sins  and  to  trust  in  God's  mercy 
for  forgiveness  and  life  eternal,  but  it  is  opportunity  to  know  that 
he  has  already  been  forgiven  and  saved  without  having  fulfilled 
any  conditions  of  salvation  whatever — saved  in  his  sins,  but  not 
from  them.  There  are  no  conditions  of  salvation  in  the  Rellyan 
gospel.  Men  have  no  power  to  repent,  believe,  and  obey ;  and 
all  their  attempts  to  do  these  things  are  miserable  failures  and 
useless.  The  gospel  is  an  announcement  of  salvation  and  glory 
already  obtained  in  Christ,  and  not  a  call  to  salvation  and  glory 
to  be  obtained  in  Christ  through  repentance,  faith,  and  obedience. 

1  Letters  and  Sketches,  vol.  i,  p.  374.      2  Ibid.  vol.  ii,  p.  252 


238 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


Murray  makes  use  of  the  following  illustration  :  — 

When  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shone  round  about  those  shepherds,  their 
fears  were  excited  by  their  ignorance  of  God;  and  so,  just  so,  when  the 
sinful  world  shall  behold  their  Saviour  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with 
power  and  great  glory,  they  will  be  sorely  afraid:  not  apprehending  him 
to  be  their  Saviour,  they  will  call  upon  the  rocks  and  mountains  to  hide 
them  from  the  wrath  of  that  Lamb  of  God,  xoho  hath  taken  away  the  sin  of 
the  world.  Yet  in  the  Lamb,  there  is  certainly  no  wrath,  but  the  fearful 
and  unbelieving  judge  from  their  own  darkened  and  tormented  minds.  .  .  . 

Fear  not;  for  behold  I  bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy  which  shall  be 
to  all  people.  What  were  these  glad  tidings  of  great  joy  which  were  to 
be  to  all  people  ?  That  they  may  be  saved  if  they  xcould?  That  there  was 
a  Saviour  born  unto  believers?  Do  you  not,  my  beloved  hearers,  know 
that  this  was  not  the  language  of  this  celestial  messenger? 

But  what  were  these  glad  tidings?  There  is  born  unto  you  this  day,  in 
the  city  of  David,  a  Saviour,  which  is  Chris/  the  Lord.  This  consideration 
was  in  truth,  and  indeed  sufficient  to  banish,  to  annihilate  their  fears, 
for  he  could  not  be  their  Saviour,  if  they  were  never  to  be  saved;  he  could 
not  be  the  Saviour  of  any  individual  who  was  never  saved.  These  tidings 
were  indeed  glad  tidings  of  great  joy.1 

Murray,  in  the  style  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  emphasizes 
the  importance  of  knowing  God  "us  He  is"  —  not  as  He  is 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures  —  but  as  He  is  conceived  to  be  in  pan- 
theistic Rellvanism,  as  including  in  Himself  the  entire  human 
race,  and  having  with  all  men  one  common  life.    He  says  :  — 

It  is  a  blessed  thing  to  know  God.  We  are  told,  it  is  life  eternal  to 
know  God;  but  certainly  it  is  not  life  eternal  to  know  God,  except  we 
know  God  as  he  is,  the  life  of  the  world.  It  is  a  blessed  thing  to  know 
God  in  this  character,  for  in  knowing  him  to  be  the  life  of  the  world, 
each  individual  of  the  world  who  thus  knows  him  knows  him  to  be  his 
life;  and  each  individual  thus  taught  can  say  for  himself,  God  is  my 
life;  and  he  whom  God  gives  by  his  Spirit's  teaching  thus  to  know  him, 
is  an  individual  in  that  little  remnant,  who  is  saved  in  consequence  of 
believing ;  but  this  not  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest,  for  when  every  eye 
shall  see,  then  every  heart  will  consequently  believe.2 

Christ  Not  Alone  on  the  Cross. 
These  numerous  citations  have  been  made  from  the  writings  of 
James  Relly  and  John  Murray,  partly  for  the  purpose  of  setting 
forth  fully,  and  in  their  own  phraseology,  the  Rellyau  theory  of 
atonement,  in  order  that  the  Visitors  may  be  able,  at  then-  leisure, 
to  compare  this  Rellyau  theory  of  atonement  with  the  theory  pre- 

1  Letters  and  Sketches,  vol.  iii,  p.  246.      2  Ibid.  p.  322. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


239 


sented  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  thus  to  decide  for  them- 
selves the  question  of  the  identity  of  these  two  theories.  We 
have  made  these  numerous  citations  chiefly,  however,  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing,  beyond  all  dispute,  the  truth  of  our 
assertion,  that,  according  to  Rellyanism,  Christ  was  not  alone  on 
the  cross,  but  that,  in  making  atonement  by  his  sufferings  and 
death  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  He  had  with  Him  and  in  Him  the 
entire  human  race  ;  that  the  race,  from  Adam  to  the  last  man  who 
shall  ever  be  born  on  the  earth,  was  united  to  Christ  by  a  vital 
union,  a  union  like  that  which  unites  the  body  to  the  head  in  the 
human  form,  making  of  both  one  man.  The  entire  race,  accord- 
ing to  Rellyanism,  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and  every  man  is  a 
member  in  particular  of  that  body.  Thus  all  men  and  Christ, 
gathered  together  and  united  in  one,  constitute  one  person  —  the 
head,  the  body,  and  all  the  members  having  one  common  life.  It 
cannot  be  truthfully  denied,  that  the  citations  we  have  presented 
abundantly  prove  that  such  is  the  Rellyan  theory  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  Christ's  person,  and  that  consequently  our  Lord  was  not 
alone  in  his  sufferings  and  death  on  the  cross. 

"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  in  Full  Accord  with  Rellyanism. 

But  this  Rellyan  theory  of  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person 
is  identically  that  presented  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy."  The 
progressive  professors,  as  we  have  repeatedly  shown,  represent 
over  and  over  again,  that  Christ  Jesus  was  not  alone  in  his  suffer- 
ings and  death,  but  had  with  Him  and  in  Him,  by  an  organic  and 
vital  union  with  Himself,  the  entire  human  race  ;  that  every  human 
being  is  "m  Christ,"  and  that  Christ  is  in  every  human  being, 
for  He  is  the  life  of  every  man.  They  teach  that  "the  historical 
Christ  in  relation  to  humanity  "  is  to  be  considered  "  as  identified 
with  it,"  that  "When  Christ  suffers,  the  race  suffers.  When 
Christ  is  sorrowful,  the  race  is  sorrowful."  Of  course,  Christ 
and  all  men,  if  existing  in  such  organic  and  vital  union,  have 
one  common  life,  and  constitute  one  all-comprehending  person. 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  declares  that 

The  created  universe  and  all  rational  beings  are  ...  in  Christ.  .  .  . 
his  universe  is  not  attached  to  him  externally,  but  vitally.  He  is  not  a 
governor  set  over  it,  but  is  its  life  everywhere.1 

1  Prog.  Orth.  pp.  43, 44. 


240 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


This  is  pure  Relly  anisiu.  Relly  and  Murray  would  have  accepted 
these  statements  at  once  with  thanksgiving  and  joy  as  denning  accu- 
rately their  own  favorite  doctrine.  This  is  also  Universalism  — 
not  the  form  of  Universalism  now  accepted  and  preached  by  all 
Universalists,  but  the  Universalism  which  was  held  and  preached 
in  New  England  in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century  and  in  the 
early  part  of  the  present  century.  It  is  also  Pantheism.  If 
Rellyanism  is  a  pantheistic  theology,  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
is  also,  for  they  both  have  in  them  the  very  same  central  and 
dominating  pantheistic  principles,  that  of  the  organic  and  vital 
union  of  all  men  with  Christ,  and  the  identification  of  the  life  of 
all  men  with  the  life  of  God.  If  Rellyanism  is  Universalism,  as 
its  friends  and  foes  alike  have  always  declared  it  to  be,  then 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  Universalism  also,  for  they  both 
alike  maintain  that  all  men  have  in  them  the  very  life  of  Christ, 
and  are  thus  made  constituent  parts  of  Christ's  being  ;  and  if 
these  propositions  are  established,  it  must  follow,  that  no  man  can 
ever  perish  unless  a  certain  part  of  the  very  being  of  Christ 
perishes.  It  thus  appears  to  be  true,  that  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy," in  its  vital  and  controlling  principle,  is  Rellyan,  that  is, 
pantheistic,  Universalism. 

The  Question  at  Issue. 

We  come  now  to  the  vital  question,  to  the  practical  issue  before 
us.  It  is  this :  Can  the  Rellyan  theory  of  atonement,  as  pre- 
sented in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  and  in  the  writings  of  Relly 
and  Murray,  be  legally  and  righteously  taught  by  any  professor 
on  the  Andover  foundations?  Certainly  this  theory  cannot  be 
taught  on  these  foundations  with  honor  and  righteousness  ;  and 
this  for  such  reasons  among  others  as  the  following  :  — 

Pantheistic  Universalism  is  not  Consistent  Calvinism. 

1.  The  Statutes  of  the  Associate  Foundation  require  that  every 
professor  on  that  Foundation  shall  be  a"  Consistent  Calvinist." 
We  hardly  need  say  in  the  presence  of  the  Visitors  that  no  two 
theologies  are  in  more  absolute  antagonism  each  to  the  other  than 
are  Rellyan  Universalism  as  advocated  in  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  and  in  the  writings  of  Relly  and  Murray,  and  Consistent 
Calvinism  as  held  and  advocated  by  Founders  of  Andover  Sem- 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


241 


inary ;  and  no  two  views  of  the  atonement  are  more  absolutely 
contradictory  each  of  the  other  than  are  the  Rellyan  theory  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Andover  Creed.  These  two  theologies  can 
no  more  be  brought  into  agreement  than  fire  and  water,  or  light 
and  darkness,  can  be  brought  into  agreement. 

Opinion  of  an  Andover  Professor. 

True,  one  of  the  defendant  professors,  in  his  trial  before  the 
Board  of  Visitors  in  1886,  expressed  a  decided  conviction  that 
these  two  systems  of  belief  are  in  perfect  accord,  and  that  a 
man  can  be  at  one  and  the  same  time  a  pantheistic  Universalist 
and  a  Consistent  Calvinist.  He  frankly  acknowledged  that  he 
himself  heartily  accepted,  and  was  perfectly  fascinated  with,  the 
notion,  that  the  entire  human  race  is  in  vital  union  with  Christ, 
so  that  every  human  being  is  a  member  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
He  rejoiced  in  the  belief  that  Christ  himself  is  in  every  man  and 
that  consequently  all  that  any  man  needs  to  do  is  to  build  upon 
Christ  already  within  him.  Thus  that  defendant  professor  con- 
fessed himself  a  Rellyan  Universalist.  Yet  in  the  same  defence 
he  disclosed  his  agility  and  astuteness  as  a  theologian  by  declar- 
ing with  some  vehemence :  "if  I  am  not  an  '  orthodox  and  con- 
sistent Calvinist'  according  to  the  Creed,  in  my  theological  convic- 
tions and  methods,  I  am  nothing."  Then  (we  are  compelled  to 
reply),  he  is  nothing.  For  who  does  not  know  that  a  man  can  no 
more  be,  at  once,  a  Rellyan  Universalist  and  a  Consistent  Calvin- 
ist than  he  can  go  in  two  opposite  directions  at  one  and  the  same 
time ;  or  than  he  can  be  at  the  same  moment  a  benighted  heathen 
and  an  educated  Christian  ?  The  Statutes  require  that  every  pro- 
fessor on  the  Associate  Foundation  shall  be  "an  orthodox  and 
consistent  Calvinist";  and  a  Rellyan  Universalist,  as  everybody, 
save  the  said  professor,  knows,  is  not  "  an  orthodox  and  consist- 
ent Calvinist,"  and  therefore  cannot  with  honor  and  righteous- 
ness hold  a  professorship  on  that  Foundation. 

Every  Professor  Pledged  to  Oppose  Universalism. 

2.  Another  reason  why  this  Rellyan  theory  of  atonement  can- 
not be  honorably  taught  in  Andover  Seminary  is,  that  every  pro- 
fessor has  put  himself  under  the  most  solemn  obligations  to  teach 
the  doctrines  of  the  Creed  "  in  opposition  to"  Universalism.  But 


242 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


this  Rellyaii  theory  of  atonement  is,  as  we  have  abundantly 
shown,  Uuiversalism. 

The  Teaching  of  Rellyanism  Forbidden  by  Statute. 

3.  Then  there  is  a  third  reason  why  this  Rellyan  theory  of 
atonement  cannot  be  lawfully  taught  in  Andover  Seminary.  The 
Founders  provided  in  their  Statutes,  that  every  professor  should 
be  religiously  pledged  to  teach  that  Christ  was  absolutely  "  alone" 
in  his  sufferings  and  death  on  the  cross.  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy" teaches  that  he  was  not  alone  in  his  atoning  sacrifice.  We 
have  already  called  attention  to  the  irreconcilable  conflict  of  the 
two  theologies  at  this  point.  But  this  particular  antagonism  needs 
to  be  further  explained,  that  its  decisiveness  in  this  argument  may 
be  fully  understood. 

Every  professor  in  subscribing  to  the  Creed  declares :  — 

I  believe,  .  .  .  that  .  .  .  the  Son  of  God,  aDd  He  alone,  by  his  suffer- 
ings and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men. 

Why  was  that  word  '■'■alone"  introduced  into  this  Creed-state- 
ment? It  is  not  found  in  the  catechism,  nor,  so  far  as  we  know, 
in  the  same  connection  in  any  other  confession  of  faith.  How 
came  it  to  be  in  the  Andover  Creed  ?  The  writer  of  that  Creed 
and  those  who  advised  with  him  were,  as  we  have  shown,  per- 
fectly familiar  with  the  writings  of  James  Relly  and  "the  wild 
and  confused  mysticism  "  of  John  Murray.  One  at  least  of 
these  framers  of  the  Creed  had  publicly  discussed  and  refuted 
"the  horrid  doctrine"  of  Rellyanism.  There  is  evidence  that 
they  had  a  profound  dread  of  this  "doctrine"  as  "hazardous 
to  the  souls  of  men."  and  that  they  were  determined  that  it  should 
never  be  held  and  taught  by  any  professor  in  their  Seminary. 
Heuce  they  put  two  words  into  their  Creed,  the  word  "per- 
sonal" (to  which  we  have  already  called  attention  under  our 
Third  Particular  Charge)  and  the  word  "alone";  and  they  put 
them  both  in  such  positions  as  would,  in  their  judgment,  make 
it  forever  impossible  for  any  professor  to  teach  Rellyanism 
without  breaking  sacred  promises  and  engagements,  and  per- 
verting the  trust-funds  of  the  Seminary.  Along  the  years 
immediately  preceding  the  founding  of  Andover  Seminary, 
repeated   editions   of    two   of    Relly's   works,   usually  bound 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


243 


together,  had  been  issued  in  this  country,  and  industriously 
circulated  through  New  England.  The  writers  of  the  Andover 
Creed  must  have  noted,  in  reading  the  pages  of  Relly.  how  per- 
sistently and  with  what  numerous  illustrations  he  teaches  that  the 
entire  human  race  was  "  with  and  in  Christ,"  on  the  cross  and 
everywhere  else  ;  how  repeatedly  he  declares,  that  man  of  himself 
cannot  do  what  God  requires  of  him,  —  cannot  repent,  or  believe, 
or  be  holy,  —  but  that  in  his  vital  union  and  real  identification  with 
Christ  he  can  do  all  these  things,  indeed  has  already  repented  in 
Christ's  repentance,  believed  in  Christ's  faith,  and  even  while  in 
his  sins  has  been  made  absolutely  holy  in  Christ's  perfect  holiness. 
Thoroughly  familiar  as  the  writers  of  the  Creed  were  with  this 
teaching  of  Relly  and  Murray,  and  personally  acquainted  as  they 
were  with  its  divisive  and  perversive  influence,  they  naturally 
determined  that  every  professor-elect,  as  a  condition  of  taking  his 
chair,  should  solemnly  aud  publicly  declare  :  — 

I  believe,  .  .  .  that  repentance,  faith,  and  holiness  are  the  personal 
requisites  in  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation. 

The  meaning  of  this  Creed-statement  cannot  be  misunderstood. 
The  professor,  as  a  condition  of  taking  and  holding  his  chair, 
must  say  in  substance:  "According  to  the  gospel  scheme  of 
salvation  as  I  understand  it,  accept  it,  and  will  teach  it,  sinners 
are  not  saved  through  their  repentance  in  Christ's  repentance, 
through  their  believing  in  Christ's  faith,  and  through  their  being 
made  holy  in  Christ's  holiness ;  but,  as  conditions  of  their  being 
saved  by  Christ  they  must  personally  repent  of  their  sins,  person- 
ally believe  on  Christ,  and  be  personally  holy." 

The  Founders  of  the  Seminary  also,  impelled  by  what  they 
knew  of  Rellyanism  and  what  they  had  seen  of  its  working,  de- 
termined that  never  in  their  Seminary  should  any  professor  hold 
and  teach  that  the  entire  human  race  was  "  with  and  in  Christ" 
when,  by  his  sufferings  and  death  on  the  cross,  He  made  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  men.  Consequently  they  put  into  their  Stat- 
utes the  requirement,  that  every  professor-elect,  as  a  condition  of 
taking  his  chair,  and  every  professor  once  in  every  five  years, 
as  a  condition  of  holding  his  chair,  should  solemnly  declare  :  — 

I  believe,  .  .  .  that  .  .  .  the  Son  of  God,  and  he  alone,  by  his  sufferings 
and  death,  has  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men. 


244 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


That  one  word  "alone  "  is  fatal  to  the  claim  of  the  defendant, 
that  he  and  his  progressive  associates  can  lawfully  and  honorably 
teach,  on  the  Andover  foundations,  that  all  men,  from  Adam  to 
the  last  child  that  shall  ever  be  born  on  this  earth,  were  "with 
and  in  Christ"  when  He  hung  upon  the  cross  in  atoning  sacri- 
fice for  the  sins  of  the  world.  The  statement  in  the  Creed,  that 
"  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone,"  made  the  atonement,  makes  it 
impossible  for  any  honest  professor  to  teach  in  Andover  Seminary 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  not  alone  on  the  cross.  No  wonder  the 
progressive  professors  wish  to  get  rid  of  that  word  "  alone"  I 
But  how  can  they?  There  it  is  in  the  Creed  ;  and  they  cannot  get 
it  out  of  the  Creed. 

Objection  of  One  ok  the  Defendants. 

At  the  trial  of  the  accused  professors  before  the  Visitors  in 
1886,  one  of  the  complainants  called  attention  to  this  word 
"  alone"  and  to  its  decisive  significance  in  the  Creed.  Professor 
George  Harris,  Abbot  Professor  of  Christian  Theology,  and  one 
of  the  defendants,  appeared  to  be  much  disturbed,  and  in  his 
"  defence "  made  the  following  reply,  uttering  the  last  two  or 
three  sentences  seemingly  in  considerable  heat :  — 

The  fact  that  Christ  in  his  incarnation  became  a  real  man  in  organic 
relation  with  the  human  race  gives  the  most  profound  conception  of  his 
Atonement.  It  should  also  be  observed,  that  in  the  statement  concern- 
ing incarnation  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  something  other  is  meant  than 
the  completed  union  of  Christ  with  the  believer.  And  this  view  of 
Christ's  proper  humanity  is  argued  to  be  in  opoosition  to  the  statement 
of  the  Creed  that  Jesus  Christ  and  he  alone  made  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  all  men;  as  if  "  alone"  means  that  he  has  no  organic  union  with  the 
men  for  whom  he  laid  down  his  life.  This  is  as  complete  a  reversal  of 
an  author's  meaning  as  it  was  ever  my  misfortune  to  hear.1 

But  if  our  interpretation  of  that  word  "alone  "  in  its  connection 
and  purpose,  is  a  "complete  reversal"  of  the  Founders'  mean- 
ing, why  did  not  the  learned  professor  tell  us  just  what  the 
Founders  did  mean  by  that  word  ?  The  fact  that  he  did  not  state 
distinctly  what  he  regards  as  the  true  meaning  and  purpose  of 
that  word  in  the  Creed  is  reasonable  evidence  in  the  circum- 
stances that  he  could  not  find  in  it  any  meaning  or  force  other 


1  The  Andover  Defence,  p.  295. 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


245 


than  that  which  we  find  in  it.  'We.  do  not  blame  the  professor 
for  being  disturbed  by  the  statement  in  the  Creed,  that  "  the  Son 
of  God,  and  He  alone,"  made  the  atonement.  That  statement 
sweeps  away  in  a  flash  all  his  assumed  right  to  teach  on  the 
Andover  foundations,  that  the  Son  of  God  was  not  alone  in  his 
atoning  sufferings  and  death.  It  is  a  death-blow  to  all  his  hopes 
and  assurances  of  being  able  to  maintain  and  inculcate  lawfully 
and  righteously,  in  Andover  Seminary,  a  theory  of  atonement, 
the  central  and  essential  principle  of  which  is  the  vital,  living 
union  of  the  whole  human  race  with  Christ,  when  He  was  lifted 
up  in  atoning  sacrifice  upon  the  cross. 

The  professor  may  dislike  that  word  "alone"  as  it  stands  in 
the  Creed.  He  may  dislike  still  more  our  interpretation  of  it. 
But  neither  the  word  nor  its  meaning  can  be  changed.  We  chal- 
lenge the  professor  to  show  that  our  statement  of  the  history,  the 
meaning,  and  the  purpose  of  this  Creed-word  is  false.  We  believe 
it  to  be  established  as  an  historical  fact,  that  this  decisive  word 
was  put  into  the  Creed  by  its  authors  for  the  express  purpose  of 
making  it  utterly  and  forever  impossible  for  any  true  and  honest 
man  to  hold  and  teach,  in  Andover  Seminary,  the  Rellyan  theory 
of  atonement,  which  is,  that  Christ  was  not  alone  on  the  cross, 
but  that  all  human  beings  were  "  with  and  in  Him"  in  his  suffer- 
ings and  death,  and  so  took  part  with  Him  in  making  atonement 
for  their  own  sins.  This  being  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  the 
word  "  alone,"  in  the  intent  of  the  Founders,  the  teaching  of  this 
pantheistic  theory  of  atonement  by  any  Andover  professor  is 
debarred.  This  theory  cannot  be  maintained  and  inculcated  in 
this  Seminary  without  a  violation  of  compact  and  a  criminal 
breach  of  trust. 

The  "Central  and  Vital  Principle"  Characterized. 

A  word  more  must  be  added  as  we  take  leave  of  this  panthe- 
istic theory  of  atonement.  We  have  thus  far  refrained  from 
characterizing  properly  the  notion  which  is  really  the  soul  and 
life  of  this  whole  theory  of  atonement,  and  of  all  the  other  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  of  Rellyanism  and  of  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy" ;  namely,  the  notion  of  the  vital  union  of  all  human  beings 
with  the  person  of  Christ.  We  do  not  wish  to  speak  with  dis- 
respect of   any  one's   serious  religious  convictions.     But  the 


246 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


questions  we  are  discussing  are  not  private  or  merely  personal. 
The  Church  universal  is  interested  in  what  is  accepted  and  taught 
in  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  and  ought  to  know  the  true 
character  of  that  teaching. 

The  regnant  idea  which  lies  back  of  that  theory  of  atonement 
set  forth  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  and  in  Rellyism  is  not, 
as  Professor  Harris  charges  us  with  believing,  that  Christ  in  his 
Incarnation  was  "  a  real  man."  The  professor  knew  perfectly 
well  that  we  had  made  no  complaint  against  him  for  holding  that 
belief.  The  regnant  error  of  which  we  speak  is  not  that  Christ 
was  a  member  of  the  human  race.  It  is  not  that  He  was  omni- 
present, and  so  with  every  human  being.  It  is  not,  that  while  all 
other  men  have  their  imperfections  and  lackings,  Christ  was  per- 
fect at  every  point  of  his  being  and  nature,  and  lacked  nothing 
necessary  to  the  absolute  completeness  of  his  manhood  and  char- 
acter, and  therefore  was  himself  the  complement  of  every  other 
man,  and  so  in  that  sense  the  ideal  man. 

The  basal,  erroneous,  and  all-pervading  conception  in  the  theory 
of  atonement  against  which  we  enter  complaint,  is  that  all  human 
beings  who  ever  have  lived  or  ever  will  live,  were  "  with  and  in" 
Christ  on  the  cross,  united  to  Him  by  a  "vital,"  living  union,  by 
an  actual  inclusion  of  themselves  in  his  person.  No  member  of  the 
race  was  separate  from  Him.  When  He  son-owed  in  Gethsemane, 
the  race  in  Him  sorrowed.  When  He  suffered  on  Calvary,  the 
race  suffered.  This  union  is  '■'■organic,"  not  like  that  of  the  several 
members  of  a  family,  of  a  tribe,  of  a  race,  but  like  that  of  the 
members  of  the  human  body  with  its  head.  In  the  head,  in  the 
body,  and  in  the  members  there  is  but  one  life,  one  person.  It 
has  been  the  belief  of  some  men,  that  the  entire  human  race 
was  literally  iu  Adam,  actually  sinned  in  his  sin,  and  fell  with 
him.  So,  according  to  "Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  and  Rellyanism, 
the  entire  race  was  actually  in  Christ  on  the  cross,  and  took  part 
in  his  sufferings  and  death,  and  in  making  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  all  men  ;  and  also  has  been  and  is  in  Christ  in  all  his  condi- 
tions and  experiences,  sharing  in  all  that  He  is,  and  feels,  and 
does. 

Now  it  is  difficult  to  find  language  to  express  what  seems  to  us 
to  be  the  grotesqueness  and  hideousness  of  this  conception.  Think 
of  all  the  billions  of  human  beings  who  lived  on  the  earth  before 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


247 


our  time ;  of  all  the  millions  now  living ;  and  of  all  the  billions 
yet  to  live  ;  all  gathered  together,  and  massed  in  one  personality, 
falsely  called  Christ,  and  lifted  upon  the  cross.  Such  a  concep- 
tion of  our  Lord  and  Redeemer  is  monstrous.  Others  may  speak 
for  themselves,  but  such  is  not  our  adorable  Saviour  and  King, 
nor  is  such  the  Christ  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  of  Consistent 
Calvinism.  This  whole  idea  of  the  vital  union  and  actual  inclu- 
sion of  the  entire  human  race  in  one  divine  being  is  essentially 
and  grossly  heathen.  The  conception  in  its  germ  came  from 
heathenism,  not  from  Christianity. 

Pardon  a  personal  reminiscence.  Once  in  my  childhood,  I 
looked  with  a  revulsion  of  feeling  I  have  never  forgotten  upon 
a  picture  of  a  heathen  god.  The  deity  was  represented  as  a 
huge  monster,  with  a  multiplicity  of  heads  and  faces  and  bodies, 
of  arms  and  legs  ;  with  uncounted  hands  and  feet,  eyes  and  ears, 
mouths  and  nostrils ;  all  massed  together  in  a  single  huge  and 
horrid  personality.  One  would  recoil  from  looking  at  it  very 
much  as  he  would  recoil  from  looking  at  a  mountain  of  live 
snakes.  Something  like  this,  to  our  view,  only  on  an  infinitely 
larger  scale,  is  the  representation  that  all  human  beings  —  the  dead, 
the  living,  and  all  those  yet  to  live  —  were  massed  in  one  person- 
ality, and  then  lifted  upon  a  cross  to  suffer  and  die  in  atonement 
for  all  human  sins.  The  whole  conception  is  hideous  and  revolt- 
ing in  the  extreme.  As  a  theory  of  atonement  it  is  a  theological 
monstrosity.  Had  such  a  grotesque  idea  been  cherished  only  by 
darkened,  heathen  minds,  it  would  not  have  been  so  surprising. 
But  how  such  a  revolting  conception  of  our  personal,  glorious 
Redeemer  could  ever  have  been  entertained  for  one  moment  by 
intelligent,  educated  minds,  in  a  Christian  land,  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  passes  our  comprehension. 

One  thing  is  certain :  the  Christ  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
and  Rellyanism  is  not  the  Christ  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  of 
Consistent  Calvinism.  By  no  possible  explanation  can  they  be 
shown  to  be  one  and  the  same  being. 

Man  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

Nor  is  man  as  depicted  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  and 
Rellyanism  the  man  described  in  the  Andover  Creed  and  Consistent 
Calvinism.    Man  impotent  to  do  what  God  requires  of  him,  and 


248 


Sixth  Particular  Complaint. 


therefore  committing  no  sin  in  not  obeying  God,  —  impotent  to 
repent,  to  believe,  to  be  holy  ;  powerless  to  feel  any  sorrow  for 
his  transgressions,  and  able  only  to  point  to  Christ  and  give  expres- 
sion to  repentance  in  his  repentance  ;  —  man  who  is  of  no  account 
in  himself,  and  can  attain  to  no  eminent  value  in  the  sight  of  God, 
save  through  an  imaginary  vital  union  with  another  being,  —  man 
thus  depicted  is  not  the  regal  being  described  as  man  in  the 
Andover  Creed  and  in  Consistent  Calvinism.  There  he  appears, 
sinful  indeed,  fallen  and  lost,  yet  even  in  his  ruin  a  being  of  mag- 
nificent capabilities  and  possibilities  ;  abundantly  competent  to  do 
all  that  God  requires  of  him,  and  therefore  immeasurably  wicked 
because  he  will  not  obey  his  Maker  ;  having  in  himself  transcend- 
ent value,  possessed  of  a  soul  worth  more  than  the  whole  world, 
so  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  loved  him  even  in  his  moral  ruin, 
and  gave  Himself  for  him.  Man  being  such,  standing  forth 
alone  in  his  personal  responsibility  to  God,  and  in  his  high  personal 
obligations  to  his  fellow-men,  giving  evidence  even  in  his  apostasy 
of  his  kingly  endowments  and  of  the  supernal  destiny  for  which 
he  was  created,  and  which  may  yet  be  his,  and  so  attesting  the 
measureless  value  there  is  in  himself, — man,  being  such,  is  not 
the  pitiable,  impotent,  irresponsible,  and  worthless  creature  called 
man  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy." 

Now  we  submit  that  if  Christ  and  man,  as  set  forth  in  "  Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy,"  are  not  the  Christ  and  man  of  the  Andover 
Creed  and  of  Consistent  Calvinism,  then  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
has  no  more  legal  or  moral  right  to  use  the  name  Andover,  or  the 
prestige  of  that  name,  or  the  funds,  buildings,  and  grounds  of 
Andover,  as  the  means  of  its  own  maintenance  and  promulgation, 
than  any  other  form  of  Universalism,  or  any  form  of  Infidelity 
or  of  Atheism  has  to  use  the  same,  as  the  means  of  its  support 
and  of  its  dissemination  through  the  world. 


vn. 


FALLACIOUS  ARGUMENTS 

In  the  Replies  of  the  Defence. 

We  now  call  special  attention  to  two  or  three  notable  arguments 
made  by  the  defence  in  answer  to  the  charges  presented  by  the 
complainants. 

False  Assumption  of  the  Founders'  Ignorance. 

1.  The  defendant  has  taken  the  position,  that  the  Founders  of 
Andover  Seminary  were  utterly  ignorant  of  the  question  of  "  the 
personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire  race  "  ;  and  his  reasoning 
from  this  assumption  appears  to  be  that,  as  the  Founders  never 
heard  of  this  question,  and  knew  absolutely  nothing  about  it,  he 
and  his  progressive  associates  may  rightfully  give  in  their  teach- 
ing as  professors  any  answer  they  choose  to  such  an  inquiry  — 
may  accept  and  teach,  for  instance,  the  central  and  dominating 
principle  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  which  is  that  all  men 
exist  in  organic  and  vital  union  with  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Professor  Smyth's  Remarkable  Declaration. 

Professor  Smyth  at  the  close  of  his  long  defence,  in  his  trial 
before  the  Board  of  Visitors  in  December,  1886,  made  the  follow- 
ing astonishing  statements  :  — 

It  is  idle  to  question  that  in  all  lands,  in  all  evangelical  churches  to- 
day, the  question  of  the  personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire  race  for 
which  He  died,  is  receiving  an  attention  never  before  given  to  it.  The 
Church  at  large  has  never  yet  passed  upon  it.  It  was  not  before  the 
minds  of  the  authors  of  the  Catechism  or  of  the  Seminary  Creed.  It 
could  not  be.  Providence  shapes  problems  for  the  Church.  It  puts  this 
one  before  us.  It  would  be  at  least  doubtful  whether  if  the  Creed  con- 
tained some  expressions  which  might  be  used  to  exclude  the  new  doc- 
trine, it  would  not  be  an  unwarrantable  use  of  an  incidental  phrase,  to 
make  it  interdictive  and  decisive  of  a  question  out  of  the  purview  of 
the  framers.    Fortunately  there  is  no  such  difficulty  to  be  settled.  The 

249 


250 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


Creed  admits  by  its  silence  and  by  its  principles,  at  least  as  a  legitimate 
inquiry,  all  that  has  been  contended  for  by  me  in  the  Beview  and  in 
Progressive  Orthodoxy. 1 

These  are  remarkable  statements.  As  the  professor  read  this 
passage  before  the  Visitors  there  were  some  present  who  listened 
to  him  with  a  feeling  of  amazement.  Dr.  Smyth  is  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  He 
has  occupied  that  chair  for  about  thirty  years.  The  Statutes 
require  that  he  should  be  "learned,"  —  learned  especially  in  his 
own  department  of  instruction,  accurate  and  trustworthy  in  his 
presentation  of  historical  facts.  During  these  thirty  years  he  has 
had  ample  time  and  every  facility  needed  to  make  himself  famil- 
iar with  the  history  of  Christian  doctrine  and  of  its  conflicts  with 
religious  error  in  many  lands,  including  Old  Eugland  and  New 
England.  We  cannot  help  saying,  partly  in  his  own  language,2 
"  he  knows,  or  is  inexcusable  if  he  does  not  kuow,"  that  at  the 
very  time  Andover  Seminary  was  being  founded  and  the  Andover 
Creed  was  being  written,  John  Murray  was  preaching  Rellyanism 
in  Boston,  and  had  been  preaching  it  for  the  most  part  in  eastern 
Massachusetts  for  nearly  forty  years.  Professor  Smyth  "knows 
or  ought  to  know,"  that  Rellyanism  is  one  form  of  Universalism, 
and  that  in  its  germinal  and  organic  principle  it  is  pautheistic ; 
that  it  is  bitterly  inimical  to  evangelical  faith,  and  particularly  to 
Consistent  Calvinism ;  that  it  was  strenuously  opposed  by  evan- 
gelical clergymen  under  the  lead  of  the  Wesleys  in  England  in 
the  last  century,  and  in  this  country  in  the  last  and  in  the  early 
part  of  the  present  century  was  opposed  with  equal  resoluteness 
by  evangelical  clergymen  under  the  lead  of  such  men  as  Dr. 
Samuel  Hopkins,  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  the  younger,  President 
Ezra  Stiles,  and  Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons.  Professor  Smyth 
"knows  full  well,  or  is  inexcusable  if  he  does  not  know,"  that 
the  supreme  question  raised  by  Rellyanism  was  exactly  this  "of 
the  personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire  race  for  which  He 
died "  ;  that  James  Relly  and  his  disciple,  John  Murray,  held, 
that  all  men,  believers  and  unbelievers,  the  penitent  and  the  im- 
penitent, the  most  godly  and  the  most  wicked,  the  most  heathen 
and  the  most  civilized,  the  living  and  the  dead,  —  that  all  mem- 
bers of  the  human  race  alike  are  "i«  Christ,"  and  that  Christ  is 

1  The  Andover  Defence,  p.  179.      2  See  The  Andover  Defence,  pp.  102,  103. 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


251 


in  every  human  being,  united  to  him  by  an  organic  and  vital 
union,  a  union  not  like  that  by  which  one  member  of  the  race 
is  united  to  every  other  member,  but  like  that  which,  in  the 
human  form,  unites  the  body  and  all  its  members  to  their  head; 
and  that  the  evangelical  opponents  of  Relly  and  Murray  held, 
that  this  notion  of  the  vital  union  of  all  men  with  the  Lord 
Jesus,  or  of  the  actual  inclusion  of  the  entire  human  race  in 
the  person  of  Christ,  was  absolutely  unscriptural  and  false,  a 
pestilent  and  most  harmful  religious  error.  Professor  Smyth 
"knows,  or  ought  to  know,"  —  and  if  he  does  not  know,  his  com- 
petency in  scholarship  to  fill  his  present  chair  may  well  be  called 
in  question,  —  that  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  spoke  of  this  "notion" 
of  the  vital  union  of  Christ  with  all  mankind  as  "  unreasonable  " 
and  "  whimsical"  ;  that  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  the  younger  char- 
acterized this  same  "vital  union,"  and  the  Rellyan  theories  that 
are  naturally  evolved  from  it,  as  "  wild  and  confused  mysticism" 
and  "  horrid  doctrine"  ;  and  that  Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons,  speak- 
ing of  this  same  theory  of  the  vital  union  of  all  mankind  "  with 
Christ  through  all  the  circumstances  of  his  birth,  life,  death, 
resurrection  and  glory,"  declared  that  it  "  is  repugnant  to  the 
plainest  dictates  of  common  sense,"  and  that  it  "is  as  desti- 
tute of  all  support  from  divine  revelation  as  from  reason  and 
common  sense."  Professor  Smyth  "knows,  or  ought  to  know," 
that  the  central  and  dominating  principle  of  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy," namely,  the  vital  union  of  all  mankind  with  Christ,  is  the 
central  and  dominating  principle  of  Rellyanism,  and  that  if  that 
principle  makes  Rellyanism  outright  Universalism,  it  makes  "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy"  outright  Universalism  also.  '  We  are  thank- 
ful,' Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors,  1  that  it  does  not  de- 
volve upon  us  to  occupy  your  time  in  trying  to  explain  why  the 
professor  has  deemed  it  necessary  in  the  professed  interest  of  an 
honest,  truthful,  and  scholarly  setting  forth  of  history,'  to  make 
the  extraordinary  historical  statements  which  we  have  cited,  to 
wit,  that  "  the  question  of  the  personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the 
entire  race"  "was  not  before  the  minds  of  the  authors  ...  of 
the  Seminary  Creed,"  and  that  "It  could  not  be"  ;  that  it  was  "a 
question  out  of  the  purview  of  the  framers  "  of  the  Creed,  — 
historical  statements  "  which  he  knows  full  well,  or  is  inexcusable" 
if  he  does  not  know,  are  baseless  and  false." 


252 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


The  Question  "Well  Known  to  the  Founders. 
It  is  well  known,  if  any  historical  fact  is  well  known,  that  "  the 
question  of  the  personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire  race  "  was 
before  the  minds  of  the  Founders,  and  within  "  the  purview  of 
the  framers  "  of  the  Creed.  Indeed,  they  knew  more  about  the 
"  central  and  vital  principle  "  of  what  is  now  called  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,"  but  of  what  was  then  known  as  Rellyanism,  than 
Professor  Smyth  himself  appears  to  know  ;  for  they  knew  the 
history  of  this  speculative,  pantheistic  scheme  in  England  and  in 
this  country,  while  this  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  seems 
to  be  profoundly  ignorant  of  that  history  of  Rellyanism.  The 
Founders  had  seen  this  principle  of  the  vital  union  of  all  mankind 
with  the  Lord  Jesus  carried  out,  by  unschooled  men,  to  its  legiti- 
mate results,  with  a  vigor  and  boldness  of  logic  which  should  put 
to  shame  these  timid  aud  faltering  progressives  at  Andover.  The 
Founders  saw  Rellyanism  not  simply  in  its  germ  and  early  develop- 
ment, but  also  in  its  ghastly  maturity,  when  its  fruit  had  ripened, 
aud  men  and  churches  had  tasted  of  its  bitterness.  The  progress- 
ives at  Andover  seem  to  be  stone-blind  to  the  harvest  of  evil  that 
is  coming  of  their  own  seed-sowing.  This  whole  speculative 
scheme  of  pantheistic  thought,  which  is  as  yet  only  partially,  aud 
with  much  vagueness  and  many  inconsistencies,  disclosed  in 
"Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  in  other  writings  of  the  Andover 
progressives,  the  Founders  saw  developed  to  a  completeness  in 
which  its  true  character  could  uo  longer  be  concealed.  Neverthe- 
less, the  defendant,  from  his  large  kuowledge  as  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  is  fully  persuaded  that  this  notion  of  the 
vital  relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire  human  race  is  "  new  doc- 
trine," and  therefore  was  not  before  the  minds  of  the  authors  of 
the  Creed ;  and  he  reassures  himself  by  the  further  dogmatic 
assertion,  that  "  It  could  not  be."  Yet  notwithstanding  all  this 
firm  persuasion  of  his  mind,  "some  expressions"  in  the  Creed 
give  him  no  little  anxiety.  What  do  these  expressions  mean? 
"  Oh,  nothing,"  the  Professor  seems  to  reply.  "  The  Founders  had 
no  definite  purpose  iu  using  these  phrases.  They  could  not  possi- 
bly have  intended  to  interdict  our  '  new  doctrine,'  for  they  never 
heard  of  it."  "Providence,"  the  Professor  declares,  "shapes 
problems  for  the  Church.  It  puts  this  one  before  us.  It  would 
be  at  least  doubtful  whether  if  the  Creed  contained  some  expres- 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


253 


sions  which  might  be  used  to  exclude  the  new  doctrine  it  would 
not  be  an  unwarrantable  use  of  an  incidental  phrase  to  make  it 
interdictive  and  decisive  of  a  question  out  of  the  purview  of  the 
framers.  Fortunately  there  is  no  such  difficulty  to  be  settled." 
Indeed !  These  are  curious  remarks,  considered  in  view  of  the 
actual  historical  facts  in  the  case. 

We  say  in  reply:  Fortunately  there  is  just  "such  difficulty  to 
be  settled."  Fortunately  for  the  present  protection  of  the  Semi- 
nary and  its  funds  from  perversion,  this  question  of  "  the  per- 
sonal relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire  race"  was  not  "  out  of  the 
purview  of  the  framers"  ;  it  was  directly  before  them,  and  received 
their  most  thoughtful  and  solicitous  attention.  Note  these  words 
of  the  defendant:  "It  would  be  at  least  doubtful  wdiether  if  the 
Creed  contained  some  expressions  which  might  be  used  to  exclude 
the  new  cloctriue,"  etc.  Why,  there  is  nothing  "  doubtful"  about 
it,  and  there  is  no  "  if  "  about  it !  There  are  "  some  expressions" 
in  the  Creed — we  have  specified  some  of  them  aud  emphasized 
them  —  which  were  put  in  for  the  very  purpose  that  they  "  might 
be  used  to  exclude  '  the  new  doctrine.'"  They  are  not  aimless 
expressions,  having  no  definite  intent.  Not  one  of  them  is  an 
"  incidental  phrase,"  resulting  from  the  innocent  ignorance  of  the 
Founders.  That  phrase,  "  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  alone";  the 
phrase,  "personal  requisites"  ;  that  other  phrase,  "  do  in  this  life 
partake  of  justification,  adoption,  and  sanctification,"  —  those 
phrases,  every  one,  are  in  the  Creed  for  a  purpose.  They  are  not 
a-rrows  shot  at  random,  with  no  intention  of  hitting  anything  in 
particular,  as  the  defendant  thinks  they  are.  They  were  aimed  at, 
and  were  intended  to  pierce,  the  very  core  and  heart  of  Rellyan- 
ism,  now  called  "Progressive  Orthodoxy."  And  they  do  pierce 
its  heart  through  and  through.  Those  phrases  "incidental"! 
Those  phrases  unintended,  and  not  to  "  be  used  to  exclude  the 
new  doctrine  "  !  It  might  as  well  be  said,  that  the  patriotic  shot 
fired  at  Concord  and  Lexington  and  heard  round  the  world  was 
unintended,  merely  incidental,  and  must  not  be  regarded  as 
designed  to  exclude  British  tyranny  from  the  American  colonies ! 
The  definite  purpose  of  that  shot  was  to  effect  the  death  of  British 
tyranny  in  this  land,  and  it  did  effect  the  death  of  that  tyranny. 
The  definite  purpose  of  the  phrases  we  have  cited  from  the  Au- 
dover  Creed  was  to  effect  the  death  of  Rellyanism  in  Andover 


254 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


Seminary,  if  it  should  ever  dare  to  enter  and  take  possession  of 
this  Institution.  If  this  high  purpose  just  now  is  ineffective,  it 
is  because  the  criminal  usurpation  of  Rellyanism,  for  the  time 
being,  is  triumphant  here,  and  the  sacred  liberty  of  the  Founders 
to  do  what  they  would  with  their  own  for  the  good  of  mankind  is 
manacled  —  manacled  too  by  the  intolerance  and  tyranny  of  what 
styles  itself  broad  and  progressive  Orthodoxy,  but  which  is  only 
another  name  for  that  rationalistic  and  intolerant  liberalism  which 
has  always  been  the  bitterest  and  most  unscrupulous  foe  of  evan- 
gelical and  evangelistic  faith,  and  a  frequent  menace  to  freedom 
in  churches  and  educational  institutions  founded  by  orthodox 
people. 

Fallacious  Argument  of  the  Defendant. 

The  argument  of  the  defendant,  in  the  passage  which  we  have 
just  cited,  appears  to  be  this  :  The  Creed  is  silent  upon  this  ques- 
tion Of  the  personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire  human  race. 
The  Founders  never  heard  of  such  a  question.  Therefore  any 
professor  has  a  perfect  right  to  accept  and  teach  this  "  new  doc- 
trine "  on  the  Audover  Foundations. 

To  this  we  reply :  First,  even  if  it  were  true  that  the  Creed  is 
silent  upon  this  question,  it  would  not  by  any  means  follow  that  a 
professor  could  legally  and  righteously  hold  and  teach  this  doc- 
trine in  Andover  Seminary.  The  Creed  is  silent  upon  the  Mormon 
Delusion.  The  Founders  of  the  Seminary  never  heard  of  it. 
But  does  it  follow  from  this,  that  any  professor  has  full  right  and 
liberty,  if  he  choose  to  do  so,  to  teach  and  practise  polygamy  on 
the  Andover  Foundations?  The  Creed  is  silent  upon  the  subject 
of  modern  Spiritism.  But  does  the  mere  fact  of  that  silence 
make  it  lawful  and  right  for  a  professor  to  hold  and  expound  in 
this  Seminary  the  doctrines  of  Spiritism?  But,  secondly,  the 
Creed  is  not  silent  upon  this  question  of  the  personal  relation  of 
Christ  to  the  human  race.  In  several  expressions,  as  even  the 
defendant  half-admits,  the  Creed  has  special  reference  to  this 
pernicious  error.  We  have  shown  conclusively,  as  we  believe, 
that  the  Founders  made  provision  in  their  Statutes  and  Creed, 
abundantly  adequate,  as  they  supposed,  to  render  it  forever  im- 
possible for  any  man,  who  has  accepted  the  principles  of  Rellyan 
Universalism,  to  occupy  a  chair  in  Andover  Seminary,  without 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


255 


thereby  becoming  guilty  of  action  which  in  the  commercial  world 
would  be  regarded  as  a  crime,  —  a  crime,  too,  for  the  commission 
of  which  a  business  man  would  at  once  be  called  to  account  in  a 
court  of  justice. 

Criticisms  in  Place  of  Direct  Answers  to  Charges. 

2.  The  defendant  in  his  arguments  has  repeatedly  represented 
that  the  complainants  were  unfair,  and  even  dishonorable  in  their 
method  of  making  citations  in  proof  of  the  charges  which  they 
had  preferred  against  himself  and  some  of  his  associates.  We 
do  not  now  refer  to  the  defendant's  petty  literary  criticisms  which 
we  have  already  noticed,  but  to  another  kind  of  crimination. 
The  complainants  are  repeatedly  charged  with  wrenching  quoted 
passages  from  their  connections,  and  with  not  taking  into  account 
the  preceding  or  the  following  context.  Fault  is  found  with  the 
complainants  because,  in  some  instances,  their  citations  were 
not  more  ample.  Had  they  made  more  liberal  quotations,  it  is 
claimed,  they  would  have  found  statements  which  would  relieve 
their  distress,  prove  that  their  charge  was  groundless,  and  show 
that  the  defeudant's  belief  is  in  accord  with  the  Seminary  Creed. 
The  complainants  are  accused  of  grave  delinquency  in  not  quot- 
ing various  passages  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  defendant, 
they  ought  to  have  quoted.  More  copious  extracts  from  various 
parts  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  would  have  counterbalanced 
the  citations  actually  made,  and  have  shown  that  the  defendant  is 
not  at  variance  with  the  Creed.  Such  arguments  as  these  are  of 
frequent  recurrence  in  the  Professor's  self-defence.  In  reply  to 
them  we  would  say  :  — 

(a)  We  have  been  told  that  there  is  no  need  of  drinking  the 
whole  Atlantic  Ocean  in  order  to  prove  that  its  water  is  salt.  A 
single  taste  is  sufficient.  So  there  is  no  need  of  quoting  the 
whole  volume  entitled  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  all  the  edi- 
torials of  The  Andover  Review,  in  order  to  prove  that  the  "  New 
Theology,"  now  maintained  and  inculcated  by  the  defendant,  is 
repugnant  to  the  Andover  Creed  and  Statutes.  A  few  sentences 
are  sufficient. 

(b)  It  has  never  been  claimed  by  the  complainants  that  there 
is  no  theological  or  Biblical  truth  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy." 
Usually  the  chief  power  of  religious  error  lies  in  its  close  alliance 


256 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


with  more  or  less  of  admitted  religious  truth.  But  what  occasion 
had  the  complaiuauts  to  call  attention  to  the  wholly  unobjection- 
able statements  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"?  Tbeir  sole  pur- 
pose was  to  briug  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Visitors  such  portions 
of  the  writings  of  the  defendant  and  of  his  progressive  asso- 
ciates as  were  evidently  in  sharp  conflict  with  the  Creed  and 
Statutes  of  the  Seminary,  and  would  serve  as  proof  of  a  great 
perversion  of  trust-funds.  Such  portions  of  their  writings,  there- 
fore, were  carefully  selected,  and  their  irreconcilable  antagonism 
to  the  intention  of  the  Founders,  as  expressed  in  their  Statutes 
and  Creed,  was  pointed  out.  If  the  passages  selected  do  not 
demonstrate  that  the  defendant  is  holding  and  teaching  beliefs 
which  are  opposed  to  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  Seminary 
Creed,  it  is  perfectly  legitimate  for  the  accused  professor  to  show 
that  they  do  not  demonstrate  this.  But  to  upbraid  the  complain- 
ants for  omitting  to  cite  sentences  and  passages  which  do  not 
antagonize  the  Creed  and  Statutes  is  on  a  par  with  the  action  of 
the  criminal  in  court  who,  when  the  prosecuting  attorney  was  de- 
picting with  startling  vividness  the  revolting  details  of  his  crime, 
cried  out,  "Why  don't  you  tell  some  of  the  good  things  I've 
done?"  The  defendant  in  this  case,  sorely  pressed  by  the  pas- 
sages which  we  have  cited  against  him,  and  utterly  unable  to 
explain  them  away,  not  knowing  what  else  to  do,  cries  out: 
"  Why  do  you  not  cite  some  of  the  good  passages  which  I  have 
published,  which  contain  no  reference  whatever  to  '  the  new 
theology,'  and  which  are  in  harmony  with  the  Creed  and  Stat- 
utes of  the  Seminary?"    Such  replies  do  not  refute  the  charges. 

In  Transitu. 

(c)  It  is  difficult  to  understand  some  of  the  replies  given  and 
some  of  the  arguments  presented  by  the  defendant  in  self- 
defence,  without  taking  into  account  the  fact,  that  the  Andover 
progressives,  in  their  theological  beliefs,  are  confessedly  in 
transitu.  They  are  developing  a  "new  theology,"  and  at  the 
same  time,  as  they  claim,  are  not  relaxing  their  hold  upon  an  old 
one.  They  have  heartily  accepted  the  central  and  regnant  prin- 
ciple of  Rellyanism,  which  is  the  vital  union  of  the  entire  human 
race  with  Christ  —  a  principle  in  their  view  "  new,"  "  central  and 
vital,"  and  utterly  unknown  to  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary. 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


257 


They  propose  to  follow  the  guidance  of  this  principle  whitherso- 
ever it  may  lead  them.  It  is  their  intention  apparently  to  devote 
themselves  to  the  maintenance  and  propagation  of  this  principle, 
to  live  for  it,  and,  if  need  be,  to  die  for  it.  But  they  are  supported 
by  the  trust-funds  of  an  institution  which  was  founded  for  the 
express  purpose  of  maintaining  and  inculcating  the  evangelical 
faith  as  expressed  in  the  doctrines  of  Consistent  Calvinism. 
These  progressive  professors,  therefore,  progress  or  retrograde  as 
much  as  they  will,  are  bound  to  keep  their  faith  in  some  sort  of 
connection  with  the  Seminary  Creed,  to  which,  as  a  condition  of 
holding  their  professorships,  they  have  pledged  their  undeviating 
loyalty.  Such  is  their  present  position.  They  are  on  their  way 
to  another  theology,  one  confessedly  "  new  "  to  them,  though  it 
was  certainly  well  known  to  the  Founders.  Yet  at  the  same  time 
they  are  also  vainly  attempting  to  hold  on,  in  their  belief,  to 
Christian  doctrines,  with  which  they  can  no  longer  in  consistency 
have  any  sympathy,  as  these  doctrines  can  no  more  be  made  to 
mingle  and  coalesce  with  their  new  beliefs  than  water  and  oil  can 
be  made  to  mingle  and  coalesce. 

Timidity  of  the  Andover  Progressives. 

Now  one  of  the  results  of  their  being  in  this  state  of  transition 
in  their  theological  beliefs,  while  holding  professorships  in  An- 
dover Seminary,  is  a  certain  very  natural,  and  probably  unavoid- 
able timidity.  They  seem  to  be  living  in  mortal  fear  of  some 
kind  of  exposure.  They  proclaim  themselves  great  lovers  of 
"  new  light,"  yet,  strange  to  say,  to  walk  in  the  light  appears  to 
them  no  desirable  thing  to  do.  Apparently  they  dread  all  investi- 
gation of  their  present  theological  position.  They  eschew  ex- 
aminations of  all  kinds.  After  long  and  persistent  effort,  they 
have  at  last  succeeded  in  procuring  the  abolition  of  the  public 
spring  examination  in  the  Seminary,  which  heretofore  has  been  the 
chief  of  the  two  examinations  held  each  year.  They  dread,  how- 
ever, as  they  dread  nothing  else,  all  official  investigation  of  their 
religious  beliefs,  especially  if  that  investigation  is  to  be  conducted 
by  the  Board  of  Visitors.  At  the  thought  of  such  a  trial,  their 
usual  timidity  appears  to  change  instautly  iuto  "  a  certain  fearful 
looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indignation  "  which  will  surely 
devour  them ;  and  upon  the  least  apprehension  of  such  a  trial 


25s 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


they  set  themselves  at  once  and  with  all  vigor  to  the  work  of 
resisting  and  preventing  the  investigation  at  any  cost  of  time,  toil, 
and  treasure. 

Dread  of  Definitions. 

Another  result  of  their  being  consciously  in  such  a  transition 
state  in  their  religious  faith  is  their  extreme  reluctance  to  give 
any  definitions  of  the  theological  terms  and  phrases  which  they 
use,  still  less  of  the  new  doctrines  which  they  hold  and  teach. 
In  their  view,  apparently,  to  give  a  definition  is  to  put  their  very 
lives  in  jeopardy.  Ostensibly  they  propose  to  investigate  and 
investigate,  and  to  give  definitions  only  at  the  end  of  their  investi- 
gations. But  it  is  looking  more  and  more  as  if  it  were  their  in- 
tention never  to  reach  the  end  of  any  investigation,  and  so  never 
to  be  obliged  to  give  any  definitions.  Their  motto  might  well  be : 
li  Ever  learning,  but  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth."  Perhaps  these  progressive  professors  would  not  ob- 
ject to  this  motto,  as  it  might  seem  to  them  to  be  expressive  of 
prodigious  and  tireless  thoroughness  in  their  investigations ;  but 
Paul  applied  these  words  to  a  class  of  men  from  whom  he  warned 
Timothy  "  to  turn  away." 

Neglect  of  Definitions  Evasive  and  Deceptive. 

A  third  result  of  continuing  in  such  a  transition  state  in  reli- 
gious belief,  as  the  progressive  professors  are  in  at  present,  is  the 
vicious  habit  of  using  undefined  theological  terms  and  phrases 
now  in  one  sense  and  then  in  another,  without  giving  the  least 
intimation  that  such  terms  and  phrases  are  used  in  more  than  one 
sense.  Familiar  religious  phraseology  is  thus  employed,  when 
occasion  calls  for  it,  to  express  such  evangelical  truth  as  it  has 
always  been  understood  to  express  ;  and  the  very  same  phrase- 
ology is  also  employed,  when  occasion  calls  for  it,  to  express  the- 
ological conceptions  which  are  in  irrepressible  antagonism  to 
evangelical  faith. 

Perversion  of  Language. 

Consequently  a  fourth  result  of  the  present  futile  attempt  of 
these  progressive  divines  to  accept  and  maintain  the  "  new  the- 
ology," and  at  the  same  time  keep  themselves  in  some  sort  of 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


259 


connection  with  the  evangelical  faith  of  the  Andover  Creed,  is 
not  only  a  large  amount  of  inconsistency  and  self-contradiction 
in  their  writings,  but  also  a  certain  indefensible  vacillation  in 
their  use  of  words. 

For  example,  the  word  repentance  is  used  by  the  progressive 
professors  as  designating  now  one  thing,  and  now  another  thing. 
The  word  is  usually  understood  as  signifying  what  is  called  evan- 
gelical repentance,  or  the  sinner's  own  personal  turning  from  his 
sins  with  shame  and  sorrow  for  them.  The  Andover  progressives 
at  times  use  tbe  word  in  this  sense.  But  sometimes  they  use  the 
word  in  a  sense  totally  distinct  from  this,  or  as  signifying  a 
repenting  of  the  sinner  in  Christ's  repentance.  The  meaning  is, 
that  when  Christ  sorrows  in  view  of  human  sin,  the  entire  race, 
beiug  vitally  united  to  Him,  and  included  in  his  personality,  sor- 
rows also,  though  without  any  volition  in  the  matter,  or  any  con- 
sciousness of  repenting.  In  this  way  the  progressive  divines 
empty  familiar  religious  words  of  the  meaning  which  they  have 
always  had,  and  put  them  to  a  new  use,  aud  so  abuse  and  pervert 
language.  People  listeniug  to  a  progressive  preacher  are  often 
deceived.  He  uses  common  evangelical  phraseology,  and  they 
deem  him  very  orthodox ;  when  in  fact  he  is  discoursing  about 
one  thing  and  they  are  thinking  about  another  thing.  He  may  be 
preaching  race-repentance,  which  is  a  doctrine  of  Rellyan  Univer- 
salism,  and  they  may  suppose  that  he  is  speaking  of  the  same 
kind  of  repentance  which  Christ  and  the  apostles  preached. 

Notice  now  another  peculiar  manner  in  which  the  defendant 
conducts  his  defence. 

Self-contradiction  Practically  Admitted  by  the  Defendant. 

The  authors  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  in  their  discussion 
of  the  subject  of  repentance,  declare  in  the  most  positive  terms, 
that  "  man  of  himself  cannot  repent,"  but  in  union  with  Christ  he 
can  and  does  repent.  In  Him  the  race  repents.  These  authors 
affirm,  that  "When  Christ  is  sorrowful,  the  race  is  sorrowful." 
This  is  pure  Rellyanism.  It  is  outright  Eellyau  Universalism. 
Yet  these  same  professors,  in  this  same  discussion,  speak  of  men 
as  being  themselves,  or  personally,  "stirred  to  penitence."  And 
they  declare  of  "  man,"  that,  "under  the  appropriate  influences 
he  is  capable  of  repenting.'     This  is  the  theology  of  the  Andover 


260 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


Creed.  This  is  Consistent  Calvinism.  But  such  language  is  an 
absolute  contradiction  of  the  Rellyan  theory  of  repentance,  which, 
those  same  professors  declare,  is  their  accepted  belief.  • 

Now  how  does  the  defendant  in  his  elaborate  defence  explain 
this  vacillation  and  self-contradiction?  He  does  not  explain  it  at 
all.  He  practically  admits  and  intensifies  his  inconsistency.  The 
complainants  charge  him  with  teaching,  contrary  to  the  Creed,  that 
man  of  himself  cannot  repent,  but  can  repent  in  his  union  with 
Christ ;  that  when  Christ  repents  every  man  repents.  The  de- 
fendant replies  :  '  Yes  ;  but  I  also  teach  that  man  of  himself  can 
repent.  Under  appropriate  influences,  he  is  capable  of  repent- 
ing.' Such  is  his  argument  in  defence.  All  we  need  to  say  about 
it  is  that  it  is  a  complete  self-stultification.  It  is  playing  fast 
and  loose.  It  is  giving  with  one  hand  and  taking  back  with  the 
other. 

"The  Other  View"  of  Atonement. 

Similar  inconsistency  is  found  in  other  parts  of  the  professor's 
defence,  as  well  as  in  various  discussions  in  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy." In  treating  of  atonement,  however,  much  self-contra- 
diction is  sagaciously  avoided  by  presenting  only  "  one  view  of 
atonement,"  and  simply  remarking  that  there  is  another  view 
which  is  so  familiar  that  it  need  not  be  given  in  detail.  The  view 
presented  proves  to  be  the  Rellyan  theory  of  atonement.  Had 
the  authors  of  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  and  the  defendant  in 
his  defence,  made  a  full  and  honest  statement  of  the  "  other 
view,"  that  is,  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement  as  defined  and  held 
by  Consistent  Calvinists,  they  would  at  once  have  involved  them- 
selves in  a  perfect  tangle  of  self-contradictious.  There  was  a 
certain  kind  of  wisdom  in  omitting  to  present  "  in  detail  "  the  other 
vieiu,  as  there  is  also  in  declining  to  define  theological  terms,  and 
in  using  familiar  evangelical  phraseology  to  express  religious  con- 
ceptions which,  if  understood,  would  be  abhorrent  to  all  evangel- 
ical believers.  But  is  this  the  wisdom  "  that  is  from  above  "?  Is 
such  wisdom  worthy  of  an  Andover  professor?  Such  a  method 
of  introducing  a  "  new  theology  "  into  Andover  Seminary  and  of 
defending  its  introduction  cannot  be  covered.  From  the  first  it 
has  been  unmasked  to  the  eyes  of  all  people  of  even  ordinary 
theological  information.    The  whole  proceeding  has  awakened 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


261 


astonishment  in  multitudes  of  minds,  and  has  been  condemned 
even  by  liberals  as  well  as  by  conservatives.  An  apparently  can- 
did and  judicial  writer  in  The  Universalist  Quarterly  (January, 
1885)  gives  expression  to  the  following  plain  judgment :  — 

Already  it  is  too  evident  that  the  New  Orthodoxy  is  clinging  to  the 
words  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy  after  having  cast  aside  all  that  these  words 
meant  and  must  mean  to  every  veracious  mind. 

Rev.  Frederic  Palmer's  Criticism  on  "  Progressive 
Orthodoxy." 

Even  in  The  Andover  Review  (February,  1890)  is  found  an 
Article  designed  to  be  a  friendly  criticism  of  "Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy," in  which  the  writer,  Rev.  Frederic  Palmer,  exposes,  with 
no  little  plainness  of  speech,  the  inconsistencies  and  self-contra- 
dictions of  the  Andover  progressives.  He  is  abundantly  com- 
petent to  make  such  criticism  upon  their  present  theological 
position.  He  knows  all  the  way  over  which  they  have  traveled, 
and  all  the  way  they  must  yet  travel  if  they  are  to  follow  the  lead 
of  their  avowed  guiding  principle,  for  he  has  traveled  all  this  way 
himself,  and  is  now  somewhat  in  advance  of  these  progressive 
professors.  He  arraigns  them  for  their  inconsistency,  in  teaching 
the  doctrine  of  the  divine  immanence  in  humanity,  or  of  the  life 
of  God  in  every  man  (which  divine  life  must  make  every  human 
soul  as  safe  from  being  lost  as  is  God  himself) ,  and  at  the  same 
time  teaching,  in  absolute  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  their  other 
pet  dogmas,  that  no  man  can  be  saved  without  knowledge  of 
Christ,  and  that  "  no  man  can  be  lost  without  having  had  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,"  and  that  every  man  "sooner  or  later,"  "some- 
time and  somewhere,"  if  not  in  this  world,  then  in  the  next,  will 
have  opportunity  to  know  Christ.  Mr.  Palmer  was  probably  not 
aware  that  all  this  is  of  the  very  essence  of  that  Rellyau  Uuiver- 
salism  which  was  perfectly  familiar  to  the  Founders,  and  against 
the  teaching  of  which  they  supposed  they  had  -forever  protected 
their  Seminary.  Had  he  known  this,  he  might  have  found  some- 
thing else  to  criticize  in  these  men  besides  their  theological  vacil- 
lations and  self-contradictions. 

Mr.  Palmer  also  justly  reproves  these  progressive  theologians 
for  their  failure  to  define  the  theological  terms  which  they  use. 
After  giving  some  statement  of  their  much-emphasized  doctrine 


262 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


of  the  absolute  necessity  of  "the  knowledge  of  Christ"  to  the 
salvation  of  any  man,  and  referring  to  their  belief  that  God 
cannot  be  just  unless  He  gives  to  every  man  "  a  chance  to  pass 
upon  the  claims  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Mr.  Palmer  adds :  — 

Now  here  is  a  plentiful  lack  of  definitions.  Apart  from  those  we  have 
mentioned,  — what  is  meant  by  Christ?  and  what  is  meant  by  salvation? 
—  Here  are  others :  What  constitutes  a  sufficient  "  knowledge  of  Christ"? 
What  determines  whether  the  opportunity  for  getting  that  knowledge 
was  sufficient?   What  is  "  passing  upon  the  claims  of  Christ "? 1 

Mr.  Palmer  had  already  charged,  that  in  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  there  is  "  a  lack  of  definition  of  fundamental  terms,"  and 
then  had  said,  in  words  to  which  we  now  call  special  attention  :  — 

One  would  suppose  that  if  nowhere  else,  yet  in  the  discussion  of 
eschatology,  a  definition  would  have  been  given,  or  would  have  been 
privately  arrived  at,  of  salvation.  But  in  the  chapter  on  this  subject 
one  looks  in  vain,  not  only  for  such  a  definition,  but  for  any  clear  con- 
ception of  it.  .  .  . 

The  same  confusion  hides  in  other  phrases  covering  fundamental 
needs  of  thought:  "The  gospel,"  "accepting  Christ,"  "faith,"  "na- 
ture,"—  it  is  assumed  that  these  have  no  need  of  definition.  And  as 
two  meanings  are  possible  in  each  of  these  cases,  confusion  is  inevi- 
table, especially  since  the  real  root  of  the  difficulty  is  that  Andover  is 
dissatisfied  with  one  meaning,  and  has  abandoned  it  in  feeling  while 
still  holding  to  it  in  thought.  She  has  jumped  off  the  boat  without 
having  reached  the  wharf.2    [Italics  ours.] 

Have  Abandoned  the  Andover  Creed. 

These  professors  are  under  stress  of  local  conditions.  They 
are  undertaking  to  introduce  a  pantheistic  theology  into  a  Semi- 
nary founded  to  teach  Consistent  Calvinism.  It  is  hazardous 
business.  They  have  subscribed  to  a  Calvinistic  Creed,  and  have 
promised  to  be  loyal  to  it  and  to  maintain  and  inculcate  its  doc- 
trines. How  about  keeping  that  pledge?  Such  has  been  and  is 
their  predicament.  In  Mr.  Palmer's  graphic  words,  they  are 
"  dissatisfied  with  one  meaning  "  of  certain  "  fundamental  terms" 
and  "have  abandoned  it  in  feeliug  while  still  holding  to  it  in 
thought."  They  have  "  jumped  off  the  boat  without  having 
reached  the  wharf."  They  have  leaped  clear  of  the  Andover 
Creed  and  Consistent  Calvinism,  yet,  as  he  thinks,  they  have 

1  Andover  Review,  Feb.  1890,  p.  193.  =  Ibid,  Feb.  1890,  pp.  187, 188. 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


2G3 


not  landed  upon  the  doctrines  of  pantheistic  Universalism.  But 
if  they  have  leaped  from  the  boat,  and  yet  have  not  reached  the 
wharf,  where  are  they  ?  It  has  been  some  ten  or  a  dozen  years 
since  they  began  the  leap.  Have  they  gone  up  into  the  skies,  or 
are  they  floundering  and  drowning  in  the  water?  Mr.  Palmer's 
language  is  highly  figurative,  yet  is  clearly  expressive  of  his  con- 
viction that  the  Andover  progressives  have  abandoned  utterly  and 
forever  all  evangelical  faith.  He  does  not  know  just  where  they 
are,  but  he  knows  where  they  are  not.  They  are  not  on  the 
Andover  Creed. 

The  Reply  of  the  Andover  Progressives. 

We  come  now  to  the  significant  fact,  that  the  accused  professors 
do  not  deny  the  truthfulness  of  Mr.  Palmer's  graphic  representa- 
tion of  their  present  plight.  Indeed,  they  practically  admit  its 
truthfulness  by  attempting  to  account  for  and  justify  their  course 
and  their  present  predicament.  In  replying  to  the  criticisms  of 
Mr.  Palmer  they  say  :  — 

These  local  conditions  [referring  to  the  strenuous  opposition  which 
had  been  manifested  to  the  teaching  of  their  "  new  theology  "  on  the 
Andover  Foundation  and  to  their  violent  attacks  upon  the  American 
Board],  as  we  acknowledge  without  hesitancy,  gave  form  and  color, 
direction  and  spirit,  to  the  movement.  Much  of  the  phraseology  employed 
in  discussion  was  used  to  make  immediate  connection  with  existing  doctrines, 
which  it  was  desired  to  supplement  or  to  apply.1    [Italics  ours.] 

Mr.  Palmer  had  severely  criticized  these  professors  for  continu- 
ing to  use,  without  definition,  evangelical  phraseology,  when  they 
had  abandoned  the  evangelical  faith  which  that  phraseology  ex- 
pressed. Their  reply  is,  that  under  the  stress  of  the  conflict  which 
they  had  raised,  they  found  it  necessary  "  to  make  immediate 
connection  with  existing  doctrines,"  that  is,  with  the  doctrines 
"  existing  "  in  the  Andover  Creed  ;  and  that  in  order  to  make  this 
"immediate  connection,"  they  must  needs  use  freely  evangelical 
phraseology  which  in  other  circumstances  they  would  not  employ. 
This  is  no  denial  of  Mr.  Palmer's  charge  that  they  had  abandoned 
evangelical  faith,  but  it  is  a  confession,  that  under  pressure  of 
circumstances  they  adopted  a  policy  in  action,  the  moral  nature 
of  which  does  not  need  to  be  characterized. 

1  Andover  Review,  April,  1S90,  p.  43". 


2G4 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


Present  Theological  Position  of  the  Andover  Progressives. 

It  is  evident,  that  the  Andover  progressives  have  leaped  from 
the  grand  old  ship  of  evangelical  faith,  which  has  braved  the 
storms  of  all  the  Christian  centuries  and  is  now  sounder  and 
stancher  than  ever,  but  it  is  not  so  evideut  that  they  have  failed 
to  land  upon  the  old,  long-unused,  decayed,  and  down-tumbling 
wharf  of  Rellyan  Uuiversalism.  Apart  from  the  critic's  vivid 
imagery,  the  prosy  fact  seems  to  be,  that  these  professors  have 
not  flown  skyward,  nor  have  they  been  struggling  in  the  water, 
but  during  all  these  years  they  have  been  trying  to  stand  with  one 
foot  on  the  stanch  old  ship  of  evangelical  faith,  and  the  other 
foot  on  the  crazy  and  tottering  old  wharf  of  Rellyan  Universal- 
ism.  The  exhibition  they  have  made  of  themselves  has  not  been 
creditable.  Their  posture  has  been  that  of  a  straddle,  so  called, 
which  is  not  a  savory  word  even  when  used  in  the  sphere  of  low 
politics.  Their  attempt  has  been  to  be  at  one  and  the  same 
time  on  both  sides  of  the  great  religious  questions  at  issue  between 
evangelical  faith  and  pantheistic  Universalism.  Moreover,  they 
are  not  crossing  over  from  unbelief  to  evangelical  faith.  Their 
"  movement,"  of  which  they  talk  so  much,  is  in  the  opposite 
direction.  It  is  from  evangelical  faith  to  unevangelical  beliefs 
and  speculations.  They  are  not  supplementing  the  "  existing 
doctrines"  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  Consistent  Calvinism,  but 
are  opposing  those  doctrines.  They  are  not  '  applying  '  them  to 
anything.  They  are  applying  the  pantheistic  principle  of  the 
vital  union  of  all  men  with  Christ  to  various  evangelical  truths, 
with  the  result  that  the  faith  of  many  in  such  truths  is  destroyed 
It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  they  are  unaware  of  this.  They 
understand  what  they  are  doing. 

They  know,  too,  whither  they  are  bound.  But  it  is  not  wise  to 
reach  their  goal  at  a  single  leap.  In  existing  circumstances  it  is 
more  prudent  to  keep  up  "  connections  "  with  the  old  faith.  Doing 
this  they  will  be  able  to  spring  quickly  back  and  forth,  from  one 
side  to  the  other  of  the  vital  questions  in  controversy.  Self- 
defence  is  thus  made  easy.  When  conservatives,  like  the 
complainants,  attack  them,  they  can  hold  up  sample  after  sample 
of  their  orthodox  words,  phrases,  and  sentences,  and  waving 
them  exultingly  in  the  ah-  cry,  '  See,  how  orthodox  we  are  !  Look 
at  these  repeated  declarations  of  our  faith,  and  know  that  we  are 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


265 


squarely  on  the  Andover  Creed  !  '  When  liberals  like  Mr.  Palmer 
attack  them  and  charge  them  with  holding  on  to  evangelical 
words  and  phrases  when  they  have  abandoned  their  only  legitimate 
meaning,  they  can  hold  aloft  sample  after  sample  of  Universalistic 
and  pantheistic  phraseology,  and  cry,  '  See  how  liberal  we  are, 
and  what  prodigious  advances  we  have  made !  We  are  not  so 
far  behind  you  as  you  seem  to  think.  As  to  these  old  evangelical 
terms,  we  do,  indeed,  use  them  now  and  then,  not,  however, 
because  we  like  to  use  them  or  accept  the  beliefs  which  they 
have  always  expressed,  but  simply  because  in  present  circum- 
stances it  is  wise  "  to  make  connection  with  existing  doctrines."  ' 
These  replies  of  the  Andover  progressives  are  virtually  an 
admission  of  the  truth  and  justness  of  our  charge,  that  they  are 
not  only  in  a  transition  state,  and  are  moving  from  the  Andover 
Creed  to  pantheistic  theories,  but  have  also  adopted  the  policy  of 
playing  fast  and  loose,  of  being  now  on  one  side  and  now  on  the 
other  side  of  the  great  religious  questions  at  issue,  or,  as  Mr. 
Palmer  expresses  it,  of  taking  "back  with  one  hand  what  they 
give  with  the  other."  While  we  do  not  affirm  that  these  progress- 
ive divines,  in  adopting  such  a  course  of  action,  are  conscious  of 
doing  anything  morally  wrong,  yet  we  are  bound  to  say,  that  if 
they  are  not  sensible  of  any  admonitions  of  conscience,  it  is  a 
"  new  departure  "  of  a  most  extraordinary  type  in  human  expe- 
rience. We  also  say,  that  this  "  taking  back  with  one  hand  what 
is  given  with  the  other,"  considered  either  as  a  method  of  con- 
cealing the  antagonism  of  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  to  the 
Andover  Creed,  or  as  a  method  of  self-justification  on  the  part  of 
the  defendant,  is  an  absolute  failure  ;  and  that  the  moral  character 
of  such  a  procedure  is  absolutely  indefensible. 

"According  to  the  Best  Light  God  Shall  Give  Me." 

3.  A  third  fallacious  argument  of  the  defence  must  now  be 
noticed.  Nothing  in  the  Constitution,  in  the  Statutes,  or  in  the 
Creed  of  Andover  Seminary  has  been  made  more  prominent  in 
the  arguments  of  the  defence  in  this  Andover  Case  than  that 
single  clause,  now  so  familiar  to  the  public,  "according  to  the 
best  light  God  shall  give  me."  The  defendant  has  been  more 
wary  than  some  of  his  legal  counsel  in  the  use  of  this  phrase. 
He  so  refers  to  it,  however,  as  to  make  the  impression  that  it 


266 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


contains  something  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  defence,  yet 
he  never  makes  the  least  allusion  to  its  grammatical  position  in 
the  Statute  of  which  it  is  a  part,  nor  to  its  actual  force  and  mean- 
ing. He  gives  great  emphasis  to  this  clause,  repeatedly  quotes  it, 
prints  it  in  italics,  once  at  least  in  capital  letters,  and  thus  indi- 
cates that  in  some  icay  it  has  a  most  significant  and  decisive 
hearing  upon  his  right  to  follow  all  "  new  light,"  and  to  introduce 
the  "  new  theology  "  into  Andover  Seminary. 

One  of  Professor  Smyth's  legal  counsel,  Theodore  C.  Dwight, 
Esq.,  made  still  larger  use  of  this  fragment  of  a  sentence.  He 
was  also  more  frank  and  positive  in  declaring  its  meaning,  and  its 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  pro- 
fessors. He  discussed  the  clause  at  considerable  length  and 
boldly  took  the  ground,  that  it  gives  to  every  professor  full  lib- 
erty to  use  Andover  Seminary  and  all  its  fuuds  for  the  propaga- 
tion of  any  new  light,  or  new  doctrine,  which  he  may  think  he  has 
discovered,  irrespective  of  its  accordance  or  discordance  with  the 
intention  of  the  Founders  as  expressed  in  their  Creed  and  Stat- 
utes. This  learned  New  York  lawyer  quoted  some  of  the  grand 
and  deservedly  famous  sentences  of  John  Robinson  respecting  our 
liberty  and  duty  to  accept  any  new  light  or  truth  that  may  come  to 
us  from  God's  Word,  and  then  interpreted  the  clause,  "  according 
to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me,"  as  alfirmiug  the  liberty  of 
every  professor  in  Andover  Seminary  to  follow  the  teaching  of 
John  Robinson,  and  accept  any  new  light,  and  teach,  by  aid  of 
the  Andover  funds,  any  new  doctrine,  which,  in  his  judgment,  has 
come  to  him  from  the  Scriptures.  Ex-Governor  Gaston  likewise, 
in  his  argument  for  the  defence,  interpreted  the  phrase,  "  best 
light,"  as  if  it  meant  M  new  light,"  new  doctrine,  and  interpreted 
the  whole  clause  as  if  it  gave  to  every  professor  "  a  certain  degree 
of  liberty"  to  decide  for  himself  what  doctriues  he  shall  promul- 
gate by  aid  of  the  Andover  Seminary  and  funds. 

By  means  of  such  interpretations  and  statements  as  these,  which 
have  been  caught  up  and  continually  repeated  by  the  secular 
papers,  the  impression  has  gone  abroad,  that  there  is  oue  sentence 
or  declaration  in  the  Andover  Constitution  or  Statutes  which 
somehow  secures  to  every  professor  full  right  and  liberty  to  use 
his  own  judgment  in  deciding  what  doctrines  he  shall  maintain 
and  teach  by  aid  of  the  Andover  endowments  ;  that  it  is,  indeed, 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


267 


a  fundamental  law  of  the  Institution,  that  every  professor  shall 
first  of  all  be  loyal  to  all  the  "  new  light  "  that  comes  to  him,  and 
that  consequently  the  new-departure  professors  are  doing  nothing 
inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary, 
or  with  their  own  promises  and  contracts,  in  introducing  a  "  new 
theology"  into  the  Seminary,  even  though  it  be  in  irrepressible 
conflict  with  some  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Andover  Creed. 

This  famous  clause,  "  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  ' 
me,"  can  be  understood  only  as  it  is  seen  in  its  relations  to  its 
context.  The  passage  in  which  it  occurs  contains  the  sacred 
promises  which  every  professor  makes,  once  in  every  five  years,  in 
connection  with  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  belief  in  all  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Creed.  This  passage  immediately  follows  the  Semi- 
nary Creed,  and  is  as  follows  :  — 

The  Declaration. 
And  furthermore  I  do  solemnly  promise  that  1  will  open  and  explain 
the  Scriptures  to  my  Pupils  with  integrity  and  faithfulness ;  that  I  will 
maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith,  as  expressed  in  the  Creed,  by 
me  now  repeated,  together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of  our 
holy  Religion,  so  far,  as  may  appertain  to  my  office,  according  to  the 
best  light  God  shall  give  me,  and  in  opposition,  not  only  to  Atheists  and 
Infidels,  but  to  Jews,  Papists,  Mohammedans,  Arians,  Pelagians,  Anti- 
nomians,  Arminians,  Socinians,  Sabellians,  Unitarians  and  Universal- 
ists ;  and  to  all  heresies  and  errors,  ancient  or  modern,  which  may  be 
opposed  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  or  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men ; 
that  by  my  instruction,  counsel,  and  example,  I  will  endeavor  to  pro- 
mote true  Piety  and  Godliness;  that  I  will  consult  the  good  of  this  In- 
stitution, and  the  peace  of  the  Churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on 
all  occasions ;  and  that  I  will  religiously  conform  to  the  Constitution  and 
Laws  of  this  Seminart,  and  tb  the  Statutes  of  this  Foundation. 

This  passage,  which  is  a  statutory  statement  of  the  promises 
which  every  professor  must  make  once  in  every  five  years,  was 
called  by  the  Founders,  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Creed 
with  which  it  is  immediately  connected,  "  The  Declaration  " ;  and 
the  two  were  spoken  of  as  "  the  Creed  and  Declaration."  This 
paragraph  was  doubtless  thus  designated  because  it  is  a  declara- 
tion, on  the  part  of  the  Founders,  of  the  promises  which  they 
require  every  professor  to  make ;  and  also,  when  repeated  by  a 
professor,  is  a  declaration  on  his  part  of  the  promises  which  he 
makes  as  a  condition  of  his  holding  a  professorship  in  Andover 


268 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


Seminary.  This  Declaration,  as  found  in  the  Statutes  of  the 
Associate  Foundation,  was  taken  for  the  most  part  from  Article 
XII  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Seminary.  The  clause  which  we 
are  considering  and  its  immediate  context  are  substantially  the 
same  in  the  Constitution  and  in  the  Associate  Statute. 

The  Clause  Interpreted. 

In  view  of  the  "  Declaration,"  now  quoted  in  full,  the  truth  of 
the  following  statements  must  be  conceded  :  — 

(a)  In  this  notable  clause,  "according  to  the  best  light  God 
shall  give  me,"  nothing  whatever  is  said  about  "  new  light,"  or 
"  new  doctrine."  Mention  is  made  of  "  the  best  light,"  but  "  the 
best  light"  may  be  old  light.  It  is  not  necessarily  "  new  light." 
The  easy  coolness  with  which  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  phrase 
"  best  light"  is  equivalent  to  the  phrase  "  new  light"  is  charac- 
teristic of  the  logic  of  the  defence.  It  would  be  as  legitimate  to 
claim,  that  every  Andover  professor  is  authorized  and  required 
to  accept  and  teach  the  old  light  or  the  old  doctrine,  and  then  to 
present,  printed  in  capital  letters,  the  statutory  clause  we  are  now 
considering,  as  in  some  mysterious  manner  proving  such  claim,  as 
it  is  to  claim  that  every  Andover  professor  is  authorized  and  re- 
quired to  accept  and  teach  "  the  new  light"  or  "  new  doctrine  of 
to-day,"  and  then  present,  printed  in  capitals,  the  same  statutory 
clause  as  in  some  mysterious  way  proving  that  claim. 

(b)  Nothing  is  said  in  this  statutory  clause  about  "the  right" 
or  "the  liberty"  of  the  professors  to  maintain  and  inculcate  any 
"new  truth"  or  "  new  doctrine,"  which,  as  they  may  conceive, 
has  come  to  them  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  has  been  strangely 
assumed,  that  because  John  Robinson,  John  Milton,  and  other 
great  advocates  of  religious  liberty  uttered  some  grand  words 
about  the  right  and  duty  of  all  Christians  to  accept  such  "new 
light"  as  may  break  upon  their  minds  from  the  Word  of  God,  it 
must  be  perfectly  just  and  proper,  that  this  famous  clause  in  the 
Andover  Statutes  should  be  so  interpreted  as  to  give  to  the  An- 
dover professors  full  liberty  to  enter  into  solemn  engagements  to 
maintain  and  inculcate  the  doctrines  of  the  Andover  Creed,  and 
then,  at  their  own  sweet  will,  to  break  their  engagements  and 
begin  to  teach  "  new  doctrines  "  which  are  in  absolute  autagonism 
to  those  of  the  Seminary  Creed  ;  and  this,  when  there  is  not  one 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


269 


word  in  that  statutory  clause  having  the  remotest  reference  to 
"religious  rights"  and  "liberties."  Would  John  Robinson,  or 
John  Milton,  or  any  other  great  defender  of  religious  freedom, 
have  advocated  such  infamous  liberty  as  this  —  liberty  to  break 
solemn  promises  and  to  be  false  to  a  great  trust  voluntarily 
assumed? 

(c)  In  this  entire  "  Declaration"  there  is  not  a  single  sentence 
or  clause  which  authorizes  a  professor  to  maintain  and  teach  any 
doctrine  or  speculation,  new  or  old,  which  antagonizes  the  Semi- 
nary Creed,  or  opposes  the  doctrines  of  Consistent  Calvinism.  It 
has  been  claimed,  or  at  least  implied,  that  there  is  a  clause  here 
which  will  allow  a  professor  to  do  this.  It  is  the  clause,  "to- 
gether with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of  our  holy  reli- 
gion." Every  professor  in  taking  the  Creed,  and  in  making  the 
promises  included  in  the  Declaration,  says:  — 

I  will  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith,  as  expressed  in  the 
Creed  by  me  now  repeated,  together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties 
of  our  holy  Religion,  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  my  office. 

At  a  hasty  and  careless  reading  it  may  possibly  seem  that  in 
one  clause  of  this  sentence  a  professor  actually  promises  to  teach 
doctrines  which  not  only  are  not  in  the  Creed,  but  also  may  be 
opposed  to  the  Creed  and  to  Consistent  Calvinism.  But  does  he 
make  such  a  promise?  Not  at  all.  Notice  the  language.  Every 
professor  promises  to  "  maintain  and  inculcate  the  Christian  faith 
as  expressed  in  the  Creed,"  "  together  with  all  the  other  doctrines 
and  duties"  —  not  "together  with  all  other  doctrines," — but 
"  together  with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of  our  holy  Reli- 
gion." Whose  holy  religion?  "Of  our  holy  Religion";  the 
holy  religion  of  the  Founders,  and  of  those  who  were  of  the 
same  faith  with  themselves  ;  that  is,  the  holy  religion  of  Consist- 
ent Calvinists.  That  little  word  "  our  "  should  be  printed  large, 
so  large  that  no  Andover  professor  or  Trustee  can  ever  again  fail 
to  see  it.  When  the  Founders  put  into  this  Statute  the  phrase, 
"  all  the  other  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion,"  they  did  not  mean 
all  the  doctrines  of  the  holy  religion  of  Mohammedans,  or  of 
Unitarians,  or  of  Rellyan  Universalists,  or  of  semi-pagan  panthe- 
ists. This  phrase,  '•'•our  holy  religion,"  when  written  by  the 
Associate  Founders,  meant  the  holy  religion  of  Consistent  Cal- 


270 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


vinists.  And  when  a  professor  to-day  repeats  that  phrase  in 
solemn  promise,  he  has  no  legal  or  moral  right  to  mean  anything 
different  from  what  the  Founders  meant.  The  Founders  were 
not  so  near  idiocy  that  they  required  every  professor  on  their 
foundation  to  promise  solemnly,  first,  that  he  would  maintain  and 
inculcate  "  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed"  in  their  oicn  Creed; 
and  then  to  promise,  secondly,  that  he  would  also  maintain  and 
inculcate  all  doctrines  of  any  other  creed  which  he  might  prefer, 
however  opposed  they  might  be  to  the  Seminary  Creed.  That 
little  word  "our"  brings  the  promissory  clause  in  which  it 
stands  into  perfect  harmony  with  all  the  other  promises,  with  the 
entire  Creed,  and  with  all  the  Statutes  of  the  Seminary. 

(rf)  The  clause,  "according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give 
me,"  is  a  qualifying  clause.  It  has  adverbial  force.  It  tells  how 
something  is  to  be  done.  But  it  does  not  qualify  the  promissory 
declaration,  "  I  do  solemnly  promise  that  I  will  open  and  explain 
the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils  with  integrity  and  faithfulness."  It 
has  been  claimed  that  this  famous  adverbial  clause  does  qualify 
that  promise.  This  claim  has  been  put  forth  by  one  professor 
and  by  one  trustee,  both  of  whom  have  defended  and  aided  to  the 
extent  of  their  ability  the  theological  revolution  now  in  progress 
in  Andover  Seminary.  (See  Audover  Defence,  p.  305,  and  "  The 
Creed  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  By  Rev.  D.  T.  Fiske, 
d.d.,"  p.  8.)  But  this  claim  is  fallacious.  The  adverbial  clause 
is  not  attached  to  this  first  promise.  It  is  attached  to  the  second 
promise,  and  the  second  promise  comes  between  this  clause  and 
the  first  promise.  (See  the  Declaration  quoted  above.)  The 
plain  rules  of  grammar  forbid  the  interpretation  which  comes 
from  making  this  clause  added  to  the  second  promise  qualify  also 
the  first  promise.  To  urge  this  construction  is  to  wrest  language, 
to  misrepresent  the  intention  of  the  Founders,  to  ascribe  to  them 
such  self-contradiction  and  folly  as  they  were  never  guilty  of,  and 
to  represent  that  they  deliberately  allowed,  and  even  required, 
professors  to  make  a  promise,  the  faithful  fulfilment  of  which 
might  defeat  all  the  grand  and  unmistakable  purposes  for  which 
the  Seminary  was  founded. 

Why  has  this  fallacious  claim  been  urged  ?  The  motive  has  not 
been  stated.  But  whatever  the  motive  may  have  been,  one  thing 
is  certain  :  if  the  promise  to  be  made  by  professors  is  this,  "I 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


271 


will  open  and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils  with  integrity 
and  faithfulness,"  "  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me," 
then  a  professor  may  go  into  his  lecture  room  and  say,  or  may 
say  in  his  publications  :  "I  have  promised  to  explain  the  Scriptures 
with  integrity  and  faithfulness  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall 
give  me,  and  on  my  honor,  explaining  the  Scriptures  with  integrity 
and  faithfulness,  I  must  affirm  that,  '  according  to  the  best  light 
God  novo  gives  me,'  the  most  destructive  criticism  of  the  Scriptures 
of  which  I  ever  heard  does  not  go  too  far.  Accordingly,  I  believe 
and  teach  that  the  Bible  is  nothing  but  so  much  paper  and  ink  ; 
that  there  are  no  words,  or  teachings,  or  so-called  revelations  in 
the  Bible  which  can  truthfully  be  said  to  have  any  divine  author- 
ity whatever.  The  Bible  abounds  in  errors  of  all  kinds,  and 
therefore  is  untrustworthy  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  I 
myself,  however,  and  others  like  me,  in  our  superior  and  reverent 
scholarship,  are  abundantly  competent  to  amend  the  Scriptures 
and  correct  all  the  blunders  of  ignorant  prophets  and  unscholarly 
apostles.  The  man  Jesus  amended  the  Scriptures,  therefore  I 
can.  If  the  apostle  Paul  had  the  mind  of  Christ,  so  have  I.  If 
apostles  out  of  their  own  Christian  consciousness  evolved  holy 
Scripture,  I  can  evolve  the  same  out  of  my  Christian  consciousness. 
As  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  I  have  this  to  say  :  that  all  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  must  bring  their  credentials 
and  submit  them  to  the  test  of  the  truth  that  is  in  my  heart  and 
my  mind.  If  the  Scripture  thus  presented  to  me  for  authentica- 
tion be  truth,  I  shall  decide  that  it  is  truth,  and  then  it  will  have 
authority  ;  not,  however,  because  it  came  from  prophets,  or  apostles, 
or  even  from  Christ  himself,  but  because  I  have  said  it  is  truth." 

Any  professor,  we  say,  if  so  disposed,  may  lawfully  proclaim 
and  teach  such  radical  and  revolutionary  infidelity  as  this  in  An- 
dover  Seminary,  if  he  be  allowed  to  make  the  proposed  amended 
promise:  "I  will  open  and  explain  the  Scriptures  to  my  pupils 
with  integrity  and  faithfulness,  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall 
give  me."  And  thus  this  sacred  Seminary,  which  was  founded  to 
maintain  the  truth  and  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
"in  opposition  ...  to  Infidels,"  may  be  used  in  the  spirit  of 
Voltaire  to  destroy  their  truth  and  divine  authority,  and  to  blot 
the  Bible  itself  out  of  existence,  under  the  plea  that  this  is 
"reverent  and  tolerant  scholarship." 


272 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


To  "  open  the  Scriptures"  is  to  give  an  exposition  of  them. 
To  "  explain"  the  Scriptures  includes  something  more  than  expo- 
sition ;  it  is  to  account  for  them,  to  tell  what  they  are,  and 
whence  they  came.  The  amendment  recently  introduced  by  a 
trustee  and  a  professor  into  the  Declaration  of  the  Founders  is  to 
the  effect,  that  every  professor  shall  account  for  the  Scriptures 
and  decide  the  questions  of  their  origin  and  divine  authority 
"  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  him." 

This  amendment  is  of  the  nature  of  an  addition  to  a  Statute. 
It  is  adding  to  a  statutory  sentence  a  modifying  clause  which  the 
Founders  never  annexed  to  that  sentence.  That  the  change  thus 
proposed  is  radical  and  revolutionary  cannot  be  denied.  Whether 
this  amendment  be  introduced  by  inadvertence  or  by  deliberate 
intention,  the  effect  will  be  the  same.  It  opens  a  wide  door  to 
any  amount  of  the  most  destructive  criticism  of  the  Bible,  and 
prepares  the  way  for  the  defeat  of  the  chief  purposes  of  the 
Founders  in  the  establishment  of  their  Seminary. 

It  may  be  said  in  reply  by  the  defendant  and  his  progressive 
supporters  that  the  transposition  of  this  modifying  clause,  and 
the  annexation  of  it  to  the  first  promise  in  the  Declaration  of  the 
Founders,  were  not  intended  to  be  an  amendment  of  the  Statute, 
but  only  an  interpretation  of  the  language  of  the  Statute.  To 
this  we  answer,  that  if  such  an  "interpretation"  be  accepted 
and  acted  upon  by  the  Trustees  and  Faculty  of  the  Seminary,  the 
radical  and  revolutionary  effect  will  be  precisely  the  same  that  it 
would  have  been  if  the  Statute  had  been  amended  by  the  inser- 
tion of  the  modifying  clause  immediately  after  the  first  promise 
in  the  Declaration.  The  cardinal  purposes  of  the  Founders  in  the 
establishment  of  their  Seminary  may  be  as  completely  defeated 
by  such  an  "  interpretation  "  of  the  Statute  as  by  such  an 
"amendment"  of  it.  This  proposed  change  of  the  Statute, 
whether  it  be  called  an  amendment  or  a  new  interpretation,  would 
present  an  almost  resistless  temptation  to  some  men,  if  they  were 
professors  in  this  Seminary,  to  revolutionize  the  instruction  and 
character  of  the  Institution.  Especially  would  this  temptation 
be  powerful  at  a  time  like  this,  when  the  pride  of  rationalistic  and 
speculative  scholarship  and  the  spirit  of  destructive  criticism  are 
rampant.  But  the  statutory  Declaration,  as  framed  by  the  Found- 
ers, offers  no  such  temptation  to  any  professor,  not  even  to  one 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


273 


who  might  have  the  frenzied  and  bitterly  destructive  spirit  of 
Robert  Ingersoll. 

Again  it  may  be  said,  in  reply,  by  the  defendant  and  his  sup- 
porters, that  no  Andover  professor  will  ever  put  himself  into  such 
a  position  of  extreme  antagonism  to  the  Bible  as  ' '  the  Word 
of  God,"  for  the  reason  that  he  has  solemnly  affirmed  his  belief 
in  the  divine  and  supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  by  saying 
in  the  language  of  the  Seminary  Creed,  — 

I  believe  .  .  .  that  the  word  of  God,  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  Xew  Testament,  is  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and 
practice. 

To  this  we  answer,  that  a  professor's  assent  to  the  said  state- 
ment of  the  Creed  will  not  necessarily  be  any  safeguard  against 
his  antagonism  to  the  divine  origin  and  supreme  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  for  he  may  take  the  position,  that  in  this  case  we 
have  one  of  the  "  inconsistencies"  alleged  by  the  defence  to  be 
found  in  the  Creed  and  Declaration  ;  that  the  first  promise  in  the 
Declaration,  as  he  reads  it,  and  the  statement  in  the  Creed  respect- 
ing the  perfection  of  the  Scriptures,  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict 
each  with  the  other ;  that  no  man  can  consistently  at  one  and  the 
same  time  assent  to  the  said  Creed-statement  and  make  the  said 
promise  of  the  Declaration  ;  that  consequently  he  has  a  right  to 
choose  which  he  will  discard  ;  and  that  he  prefers  to  discard  the 
Creed-statement  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
make  the  promise  required  of  him ;  for  then  he  will  be  able,  in 
all  good  conscience,  to  explain  the  Scriptures  '  according  to  the 
best  light  God  gives  7u'm,'  and  in  square  opposition  "  to  the  best 
light  God  gave  "  the  Founders  when  they  wrote  their  Creed.  Such 
a  professor  will  be  greatly  encouraged  to  make  this  choice,  and 
so  put  himself  into  conflict  with  the  Creed,  by  the  fact  that  the 
President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  has  publicly  instructed  him  : 

That  the  Original  Founders  desired  above  all  things  that  the  Scriptures 
should  be  faithfully  opened  and  explained  by  the  Professors  "  according 
to  the  best  light  God  should  give  them.  1 

This  extraordinary  explanation  and  instruction  respecting  the 
supreme  desire  of  the  Original  Founders  has  already  been  cited 
by  defendant  professors  as  an  authoritative  interpretation  of  the 
Statute,  and  as  fully  justifying  their  present  attempt  to  revolu- 

1  The  Creed  or  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  p.  8. 


274 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


tionize  the  theological  instruction  of  the  Seminary.  Such  an  offi- 
cial statement  of  the  desire  and  intent  of  the  Founders  would 
naturally  be  regarded  by  a  reckless  liberal  professor  as  giving 
him  full  warrant  to  teach  his  pupils,  if  he  should  be  disposed  to 
do  so,  that '  according  to  the  best  light  God  gives  him,'  the  Creed- 
statement  of  the  Founders  concerning  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  absolutely  false,  that  the  Bible  is 
not  "The  Word  of  God,!'  and  is  not  "  the  only  perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice." 

But  fortunately  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  is  not 
the  "  constitutional  interpreter"  of  the  Statutes  of  Andover  Semi- 
nary. His  opinion  respecting  the  desires  and  intention  of  the 
Founders  has  no  more  legal  authority  than  that  of  any  other  man. 
The  Visitors,  and  they  alone,  are  the  "constitutional  interpret- 
ers" of  the  Andover  Statutes.  The  Founders  never  entrusted 
this  high  function  to  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  nor 
to  any  other  trustee,  nor  to  all  the  trustees  ;  but,  by  Statute, 
authority  is  given  to  the  Board  of  Visitors,  and  only  to  that 
Board,  "  to  determine,  interpret  and  explain  the  Statutes."  It  is 
more  than  fortunate,  also,  it  is  a  matter  for  devout  thanksgiving 
to  God  iu  the  present  emergency,  that  no  professor,  no  trustee, 
not  even  the  Board  of  Trustees,  has  any  authority,  legal  or  moral, 
to  change,  by  addition  or  diminution,  by  transposition  or  substitu- 
tion, or  in  any  other  way,  a  single  word,  clause,  or  sentence  in 
the  Creed  or  Declaration,  in  the  Constitution  or  in  any  Statute  of 
the  Seminary.  It  is  made  the  special  duty  of  the  Board  of  Vis- 
itors to  deal  summarily  with  any  attempt,  by  whomsoever  made, 
to  bring  about  any  such  change  or  amendment  as  has  been 
recently  proposed  iu  the  "Creed  and  Declaration."  The  Board 
of  Visitors  was  established  and  endowed  with  great  powers,  for 
the  very  purpose  of  preventing  any  "  perversion"  or  "  the  small- 
est avoidance  of  the  true  design  "  of  the  Founders  as  expressed 
in  the  Constitution  and  Statutes  of  the  Seminary.  Special  Vis- 
itorial  fidelity  is  enjoined  in  guarding  the  Creed  from  all  mutila- 
tion or  alteration,  by  whomsoever  attempted.  Article  XXVII  of 
the  Associate  Statutes  declares  :  — 

It  is  strictly  and  solemnly  enjoined,  and  left  in  sacred  charge,  that 
every  article  of  the  above  said  Creed  shall  forever  remain  entirely  and 
identically  the  same,  without  the  least  alteration,  addition  or  diminution. 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


275 


But  the  recent  transposition  of  the  clause,  "  according  to  the 
best  light  God  shall  give  me,"  from  the  place  assigned  to  it  by 
the  Founders,  and  the  attachment  of  it  to  another  sentence  to 
which  the  Founders  did  not  attach  it,  is  undeniably  an  "  altera- 
tion" of  the  "Declaration,"  —  an  "alteration,"  too,  which,  if 
accepted  by  a  professor  of  the  higher,  destructive  criticism,  will 
encourage  him  to  claim  the  right  to  subscribe  to  the  Creed,  while 
he  rejects  in  toto  the  Creed-statement. of  the  divine  origin  and 
supreme  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  rejects  also  several 
other  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Creed  and  of  Consistent  Cal- 
vinism. This  astonishing  claim  may  be  grounded  upon  alleged 
inconsistency  between  the  Declaration  and  the  Creed.  The  result 
of  making  aud  justifying  this  claim  may  be,  that  the  said  pro- 
fessor will  not  only  refuse  to  teach  doctrines  of  the  Creed  which 
he  has  promised  to  teach,  but  will  also  maintain  and  inculcate 
Universalisrn,  or  Unitarianism,  or  any  other  of  the  errors  which 
he  has  solemnly  promised  to  oppose. 

(e)  But  while  the  clause,  "  according  to  the  best  light  God 
shall  give  me,"  does  not  modify  the  first,  it  does  modify  the 
second,  promise  in  the  Declaration.  Every  professor,  in  connec- 
tion with  his  assent  and  subscription  to  the  Creed,  makes  the 
following  declaration  :  — 

I  do  solemnly  promise  .  .  .  that  I  will  maintain  and  inculcate  the 
Christian  faith,  as  expressed  in  the  Creed  by  me  now  repeated,  together 
with  all  the  other  doctrines  and  duties  of  our  holy  religion,  so  far  as 
may  appertain  to  my  office,  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me, 
and  in  opposition  to  [thirteen  specified  errors]  and  to  all  heresies  and 
errors,  ancient  or  modern,  which  may  be  opposed  to  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  or  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men. 

The  Trde  Intent  of  the  Clause. 

"What  now  are  the  purpose  and  meaning  of  this  oft-repeated 
clause,  "  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  me  "? 

1.  It  may  need  to  be  said  again  by  way  of  emphasis,  that 
there  is  not  one  word  in  this  clause  about  "new  light,"  or 
"loyalty  to  the  new  light,"  or  "  new  doctrine,"  or  about  a  pro- 
fessor's "  right  "  and  "  liberty  "  to  accept  and  teach  "  new  theol- 
ogy "  on  the  Andover  Foundations.  We  submit  to  the  judgment 
of  all  intelligent  and  candid  men,  that  this  modifying  clause  can 
never  be  legitimately  and  honestly  quoted  in  defence  of  promul- 


276 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


gating,  by  aid  of  the  Andover  Seminary  and  funds,  any  new  doc- 
trines which  are  opposed  to  the  Seminary  Creed,  and  are  known 
to  have  been  abhorrent  to  the  Founders. 

2.  This  much-emphasized  clause  is  the  second  of  three  succes- 
sive modifying  clauses.  The  first  of  these,  "  so  far  as  may 
appertain  to  my  office,"  needs  no  comment.  In  the  third,  the 
professors  promise  that  they  will  maintain  and  inculcate  all  the 
designated  doctrines  "  in  opposition  to"  various  religious  errors. 
This  third  and  most  vital  modification  of  the  second  promise  in 
the  Declaration  has  seldom  been  cited,  or  even  referred  to,  by  the 
legal  counsel  and  other  supporters  of  the  defendant.  Over  and 
over,  and  with  great  gusto,  they  quote  the  words,  often  printing 
them  in  capitals,  "according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give 
me";  but  they  stop  with  the  word  "me,"  thus  making  the  im- 
pression that  the  Founders  added  no  other  modification  to  the 
second  promise,  and  that  thesa  words  about  "  the  best  light"  do  in 
some  mysterious  way  give  to  every  Andover  professor  full  liberty 
to  accept  and  promulgate  any  "new  light"  which  may  come  to 
him,  even  though  it  may  prove  to  be  (under  a  new  name)  Rellyau 
Universalism  or  Uuitarianism  or  any  other  of  the  errors  specified 
or  indicated  in  this  third  and  most  important  modifying  clause. 

3.  But  indispensable  as  is  this  third  modification  to  a  true  under- 
standing of  the  second  modification  and  of  the  whole  intention 
of  the  Founders,  it  has  been  kept  by  the  defence  in  the  back- 
ground, and  the  second  modification  has  been  constantly  pushed 
to  the  front.  The  words  "  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall 
give  me,"  have  been  again  and  again  "wrenched  from  their  con- 
nections," and  worked  for  all  they  were  supposed  to  be  worth  in 
support  of  the  right  of  the  defendant  to  promulgate  "  new  light" 
in  the  form  of  a  "  new  theology"  by  means  of  the  funds  and  the 
prestige  of  Andover  Seminary. 

But  what  are  the  import  and  purpose  of  this  second  modifying 
clause?  Every  professor  promises  that  he  "will  maintain  and 
inculcate "  certain  carefully  designated  doctrines  1  according  to 
the  best  light  God  shall  give  him.'  This  clause  was  intended  to 
qualify  the  verbs  "  will  maintain  and  inculcate."  Its  whole  and 
only  purpose  was  to  designate  the  manner  in  which  professors 
should  "  maintain  and  inculcate"  certain  definitely  prescribed  doc- 
trines.   Plainly  such  was  the  intent  of  the  Founders  in  the  inser- 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


277 


tion  of  this  clause,  and  they  had  no  other  intent.  They  never 
dreamed  of  its  being  used  by  a  professor  in  defence  of  his 
alleged  right  to  substitute  his  own  "  new  light"  in  the  place  of  the 
designated  doctrines  he  has  promised  to  teach,  and  to  teach  too  in 
the  very  best  manner  possible .  The  purpose  of  the  Founders  was 
to  secure  from  every  professor  a  promise  given  as  by  oath,  that 
he  would  teach  the  very  doctrines  which  they  had  prescribed  in 
their  Statutes,  and  teach  them  too  according  to  the  best  light, 
according  to  the  best  knowledge  and  wisdom  God  should  give 
him.  But  in  exacting  this  promise,  the  Founders  give  to  their 
professors  no  authority  whatever  to  teach  any  other  than  the  pre- 
scribed doctrines.  The  promise  itself  is  a  bar  to  their  teaching 
any  doctrines  which  are  in  the  least  degree  inconsistent  with  those 
prescribed  in  the  Statutes  of  the  Seminary. 

If  a  president-elect  of  the  United  States,  in  taking  his  official 
oath,  should  solemnly  swear  that  he  would  execute  all  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  "  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  his  office,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  light  God  should  give  him,"  it  would  by  no  means 
follow  that  he  is  authorized  by  that  oath  to  discard  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  and  execute  in  their  place  new  laws  of  his  own 
invention  and  creation  under  the  specious  plea  that  his  new  laws 
are  less  antiquated,  more  advanced,  and  every  way  better  than 
the  old  ones.  Such  action  on  his  part  would  be  insufferable 
usurpation  and  tyranny.  For  such  a  crime  a  President  would 
be  impeached,  and  forthwith  removed  from  office.  Now  every 
Anciover  professor  solemnly  promises  to  maintain  and  inculcate  all 
the  doctrines  which  are  carefully  prescribed  by  Creed  and  Statutes, 
'  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  him,'  and  to  oppose 
all  antagonistic  doctrines ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  is 
authorized  by  that  promise  to  discard  these  same  carefully  pre- 
scribed doctrines,  and  to  maintain  and  inculcate  in  their  place  new 
and  opposing  doctrines  of  his  own  invention  and  creation,  under 
the  specious  plea  that  these  new  doctrines  are  not  antiquated,  but 
are  "higher,"  "  larger,"  "  more  advanced,"  and  every  way  better 
than  those  which  he  has  religiously  promised  to  maintain  and  in- 
culcate. Such  action  is  an  intolerable  usurpation  of  authority, 
and  a  criminal  breach  of  contract.  The  least  required  by  the 
Statutes  to  be  done  with  such  a  professor  is,  that  he  forthwith  be 
removed  from  office. 


278 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


4.  "We  add  in  the  next  place,  that  while  the  Founders  require 
every  professor  to  teach  doctrines  "other"  than  those  of  the 
Creed,  so  far  as  may  appertain  to  his  office,  yet  they  do  not  leave 
it  to  the  professor  to  determine  what  those  "other  doctrines" 
are.  The  strange  claim  has  been  put  forth,  that  the  Founders  do 
leave  the  determination  of  this  to  the  professors.  It  has  been 
affirmed 

That  the  Founders  .  .  .  require  their  Professors  to  teach  "all  other 
doctrines  of  our  holy  religion  "  —  leaving  it  for  them  to  determine  what 
those  "  other  doctrines  "  are,  —  "  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall 
give  them."  1 

But  this  statement  is  not  true.  As  has  already  been  shown,  the 
Founders  themselves  determine  what  "the  other  doctrines"  are. 
Their  language  is  not  "  all  other  doctrines,"  but  it  is,  "  all  the 
other  doctrines."  They  have  in  mind  certain  definite  doctrines. 
Other  words  of  vital  significance  they  also  add.  They  say  :  "all 
the  other  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion."  Of  whose  holy  religion? 
Of  the  holy  religion  of  the  professors?  Not  necessarily.  Of 
the  holy  religion  of  Rellyan  Universalists?  By  no  means.  The 
Founders  say:  "all  the  other  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion." 
The  writers  of  the  Creed  and  Declaration  were  Consistent  Calvin- 
ists,  and  when  they  said  "  our  holy  religion,"  they  meant  the 
holy  religion  of  Consistent  Calvinists,  and  all  their  doctrines  were 
clearly  defined  and  well  known.  It  was  assumed  that  no  man  fit 
to  be  a  professor  in  Andover  Seminary  would  ever  subscribe  to 
the  Creed  of  the  Founders  before  knowing  definitely  what  the 
doctrines  of  that  Creed  are ;  and  that  no  man  fit  to  be  an  An- 
dover professor  would  ever  subscribe  to  the  promises  of  the 
Declaration  of  the  Founders,  before  knowing  definitely  what  he 
promises  to  do.  Any  man  of  sufficient  scholarship  to  occupy  any 
chair  in  Andover  Seminary  does  know  what  the  doctrines  of  its 
Creed  are,  and  what  "all  the  other  doctrines  of"  the  Founders' 
"holy  religion"  are.  Any  man  destitute  of  this  knowledge  of 
Consistent  Calvinism  is  thereby  disqualified  to  hold  a  professor- 
ship in  this  Seminary.  The  Founders  never  intended  to  allow 
men  to  subscribe  to  their  Creed  not  knowing  what  they  subscribed 
to,  and  then  leave  it  to  them  to  determine  afterwards  to  what  they 

1  The  Creed  of  Aniiover  Theological  Seminary,  by  Rev.  D.  T.  Fiske,  D.D.,  p.  26. 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


279 


had  subscribed.  Nor  did  they  ever  intend  to  allow  men  to  sub- 
scribe to  the  solemn  promises  of  their  Declaration,  not  knowing 
what  they  promised,  and  then  leave  it  to  them  to  determine  after- 
ward what  they  had  promised.  Even  if  it  shall  be  found  —  which 
may  God  forbid !  —  that  there  are  men  in  the  administration 
of  Andover  Seminary  who  are  willing  that  professors-elect  and 
professors  in  service  should  make  the  most  momentous  and 
sacred  promises  not  knowing  what  they  promise,  and  then  are 
willing  to  leave  it  to  the  professors  to  determine  at  their  leisure, 
"  according  to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  them,"  what  they  have 
promised,  yet  two  things  are  certain :  the  Founders  did  not  belong 
to  that  class  of  men  ;  and  they  never  intended  that  that  class  of 
men  should  ever  have  part  in  the  administration  of  their  Seminary. 

The  doctrines  intended  by  the  Founders  to  be  maintained  and 
inculcated  in  their  Theological  Institution  are  clearly  designated 
in  their  Creed  and  Declaration,  and  as  clearly  in  their  Declaration 
as  in  their  Creed.  It  cannot  be  affirmed,  that  the  phrase  "  all 
the  other  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion"  is  equivalent  to  the  phrase 
"  all  other  doctrines  of  the  holy  religion  of  any  man  who  may  be 
elected  to,  or  may  wish  to  retain,  a  professor's  chair  in  Andover 
Seminary."  Nor  can  it  be  denied,  that  the  phrase,  "  all  the  other 
doctrines  of  our  holy  religion,"  as  written  by  the  Founders,  does 
mean  exactly,  and  was  intended  to  mean,  all  the  other  doctrines  of 
the  holy  religion  of  Consistent  Calvinists.  This  designation  of 
doctrines  is  not  indeterminate  and  elastic,  as  it  has  falsely  been 
represented  to  be.  It  is  a  positive,  definite,  and  clearly  decisive 
designation.  Every  man  qualified  to  be  an  Andover  professor 
knows  what  these  "other  doctrines"  are;  for  according  to  the 
Statutes  of  the  Associate  Foundation,  a  professor  on  this  Founda- 
tion must  be  a  "Consistent  Calvinist":  and  to  say  that  a  man 
can  be  a  Consistent  Calvinist  and  not  know  what  the  doctrines  of 
his  own  faith  are,  is  like  saying  that  a  man  can  have  a  clear  and 
positive  belief  in  the  existence  of  God,  and  yet  not  know  what 
his  own  belief  respecting  the  existence  of  God  is. 

Every  intelligent  man,  therefore,  who  subscribes  to  the  Creed 
and  Declaration  of  the  Founders  of  this  Seminary  knows  exactly 
what  doctrines  he  promised  to  maintain  and  inculcate,  or,  if  he 
does  not  know,  but  intends  to  determine  later  at  his  leisure,  "  ac- 
cording to  the  best  light  God  shall  give  him,"  what  doctrines  he 


280 


Fallacious  Arguments. 


has  promised  to  maintain  and  inculcate,  then,  beyond  controversy, 
he  is  not  an  honest  man.  He  lias  not  been  true  to  himself ;  he 
has  dealt  dishonorably  with  the  Founders,  and  deceitfully  with 
the  official  guardians  of  the  Seminary,  and  so  is  morally  disquali- 
fied to  occupy  any  chair  in  the  Andover  Theological  Institution. 

SUMMART  OF  DESIGNATED  FALLACIOUS  ARGUMENTS. 

We  have  now  presented  several  examples  of  the  fallacious 
arguments  used  by  the  defendant  and  his  supporters  in  their 
replies  to  the  charges  of  the  complainants  :  First,  the  worthless 
argument  based  upon  the  false  statement  of  the  defendant,  that 
"  the  question  of  the  personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the  entire 
race,"  "  was  not  before  the  minds  of  the  authors  ...  of  the  Sem- 
inary Creed " ;  secondly,  fallacious  arguments  based  upon  an 
adroit  use  of  undefined  fundamental  terms  and  phrases  —  a  method 
of  reasoning  in  which  the  Andover  progressives  use  the  same 
theological  words  and  expressions  now  in  one  sense  and  now  in 
another  sense,  thus  attempting  to  be  at  one  and  the  same  time  on 
both  sides  of  great  theological  issues,  or,  as  the  Rev.  Frederic 
Palmer  impressively  expresses  it,  "taking  back  with  one  hand 
what  they  give  with  the  other "  ;  and  all  this  for  the  confessed 
purpose  of  making  and  keeping  up  connections  with  the  existing 
evangelical  doctrines  of  the  Andover  Creed,  which  doctrines  Mr. 
Palmer,  as  well  as  the  complainants,  claims  they  have  utterly 
abandoned  ;  and  thirdly,  the  fallacious  arguments  of  the  defence, 
built  upon  a  total  misrepresentation  of  the  meaning  and  purpose 
of  the  now  famous  clause,  "  according  to  the  best  light  God 
shall  give  me." 


VIII. 


CONCLUSION. 

The  evidence  and  arguments  which  the  complainants  desired  to 
present  are  now  before  the  Reverend  and  Honorable  Board  of 
Visitors.  We  have  abundantly  substantiated,  as  we  claim,  the 
first,  second,  third,  fifth,  sixth,  twelfth,  and  thirteenth  particular 
charges ;  and  in  proving  the  truth  of  these  specific  allegations, 
we  have  also  fully  justified  the  four  general  complaints  which 
we  have  presented  to  your  Board.  The  remaining  charges  we 
have  refrained  from  considering  at  this  hearing,  not  because 
we  deemed  them  unimportant,  but  partly  for  lack  of  time  and 
partly  because,  in  our  opinion,  the  presentation  of  evidence  and 
argument  in  proof  of  seven  specific  charges  would  be  sufficient 
to  convince  the  Board  of  Visitors  that  "Progressive  Orthodoxy," 
as  now  held  and  taught  by  the  defendant  in  Andover  Seminary, 
is  not  the  Consistent  Calvinism  which  the  Seminary  was  founded 
to  maintain  and  inculcate,  but  is  undeniably  in  absolute  conflict 
with  the  Creed  and  Statutes  of  the  Founders. 

The  Dogma  of  Probation  after  Death  not  Considered. 

It  may  have  been  expected,  however,  that  we  would  again  call 
special  attention  to  the  eleventh  specific  allegation,  which  charges 
that  the  defendant  holds  and  teaches,  "  that  there  is,  aud  will  be, 
probation  after  death  for  all  men  who  do  not  decisively  reject 
Christ  during  the  earthly  life."  But  we  have  not  occupied  your 
time  in  presenting  directly  any  proof  of  this  charge  for  two  rea- 
sons :  First,  the  cogent  and  exhaustive,  the  unanswered  and 
the  unanswerable  argument  of  our  departed  associate  complain- 
ant, the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Dexter,  d.d.,  in  support  of  this  com- 
plaint is  in  print,  and  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Board  of  Visitors. 
Such  an  argument  as  that  needs  nothing  supplementary  from  us. 
Secondly,  this  doctrine  or  hypothesis  of  a  probation  after  death, 
though  most  baneful  in  its  spiritual  and  moral  influence,  and  cer- 
tainly "  hazardous  to  the  souls  of  men,"  is  yet  not  the  central 

281 


282 


Conclusion. 


and  dominating  principle  in  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  or,  in 
what  we  have  shown  to  be  substantially  the  same  thing,  Rellyan 
Universalism.  Indeed,  when  the  root-principle  of  this  new-old 
theology  of  the  Andover  progressives  is  fully  developed  and 
applied,  it  will  be  found  that  they  do  not  believe  in  any  probation, 
in  the  evangelical  sense  of  that  term,  either  in  this  life  or  in  the 
next.  This  notion  of  a  probation  continued  into  the  next  world 
has  been  merely  the  red  flag  of  the  defendant  and  his  immediate 
supporters  in  all  this  controversy.  They  have  kept  it  waving 
briskly,  especially  by  means  of  their  conflict  with  the  American 
Board,  for  the  purpose  of  absorbing  public  attention  while  they 
have  devoted  their  best  energies  to  the  more  serious  work  of 
evolving  and  applying — and  also  of  disclosing  little  by  little,  as 
evangelical  people  and  churches  should  be  found  to  bear  it  —  the 
root-principle  of  this  system,  which  is  the  vital  union  of  the  entire 
human  race  ivith  Christ.  While  the  complainants  have  not  directly 
considered  this  notion  of  a  future  probation,  yet  in  uncoveriug  the 
true  character  of  this  root-principle  in  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy,' 
and  in  showing  that  that  principle  is  utterly  unproved  and  ground- 
less, ridiculous  and  false,  that  it  is  of  heathen  and  not  of  Chris- 
tian origin,  we  have  also  unavoidably  shown  that  such  a  probation 
after  death  as  the  defendant  believes  in  and  advocates,  is  abso- 
lutely impossible.  His  idea  of  probation,  if  he  is  consistent  with 
his  own  fundamental  and  guiding  principle,  must  be,  that  it  is 
simply  opportunity  given  to  men  to  attain  the  knowledge  of  their 
own  vital  union  with  God  in  Christ,  that  is,  knowledge  of  their 
own  deity.  But  if  there  is  no  such  vital  union  of  all  men  with 
God  in  Christ,  opportunity  to  attain  knowledge  of  it  is  impossible. 
For  these  reasons  we  have  not  thought  it  needful  to  take  up  your 
time  in  presenting  evidence  and  argument  in  proof  of  the  eleventh 
particular  charge. 

The  Gkeat  Questions  at  Issde  in  the  Andover  Case. 

It  was  stated  at  the  opening  of  this  argument  that  there  are  in 
the  Andover  Case  two  great  questions,  one  theological  and  the 
other  moral ;  and  that  the  latter  is  the  supreme  question  in  this 
trial. 

The  theological  question  is  this:  —  Is  the  "new  theology," 
called  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  which  is  now  confessedly  held 


Conclusion. 


283 


and  taught  by  the  defendant  and  his  progressive  associates  in 
Andover  Seminary,  in  accord  with,  or  in  irrepressible  conflict  with, 
"  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed,"  and  in  that  Con- 
sistent Calvinism  prescribed  in  the  Statutes  as  the  only  theology 
which  can  be  lawfully  held  and  taught  by  any  professor  on  these 
foundations?  The  determination  of  this  theological  question  is 
preliminary,  and  absolutely  necessary  to  the  determination  of  the 
moral  and  supreme  question  in  the  Andover  Case. 

The  Supreme  Question  at  Issue. 

The  moral  question  is  this  :  —  Is  it  a  righteous  act  on  the  part 
of  an  Andover  professor  who  has  subscribed  to  the  Andover 
Creed,  and  has  promised,  as  under  oath,  to  teach  "  the  Christian 
faith  as  expressed  in  that  Creed,"  after  having  radically  changed 
his  theological  beliefs,  and  accepted  a  faith  opposed  to  that 
Creed,  to  still  occupy  and  to  insist  upon  occupying  his  professorial 
chair  in  the  said  Seminary?  Is  it  just  and  honorable  for  an 
Andover  professor  who  was  elected  to  his  office  as  a  Consistent 
Calvinist,  who  declared  himself  to  be  a  Consistent  Calvinist,  and 
on  his  honor  as  a  gentleman  and  a  Christian  promised  to  teach 
Consistent  Calvinism,  to  claim  afterward  the  right  to  remain  in 
his  chair  and  be  supported  by  the  Andover  funds,  although  he 
has  ceased  to  be  a  Consistent  Calvinist?  Is  it  right  and  honest 
action  on  the  part  of  such  a  professor  who  has  ceased  to  be  a 
Consistent  Calvinist,  and  is  now  holding  and  teaching  another 
theology,  admitted  by  him  to  be  another  and  a  "  new  theology," 
and  designated  by  a  new  name,  to  insist  upon  retaining  his  pro- 
fessorship, and  using  the  Seminary,  its  funds,  its  prestige,  its 
name,  and  its  fame  to  aid  him  in  maintaining  and  promulgating 
this  "  new  theology,"  proved  to  be  opposed  to  that  of  the  Creed 
and  the  Statutes  of  the  Founders?  Such  is  the  moral  question. 
And  it  towers  high  above  all  other  questions  which  are  at  issue  in 
this  trial. 

The  Answer  Given  to  the  Theological  Question. 

The  complainants  would  gladly  learn  that  they  are  mistaken 
in  the  conclusion  which  they  have  reached  upon  the  theological 
question.  But  upon  our  honor  we  cannot  believe  that  we  are 
mistaken.    We  have  now  presented  evidence  and  arguments  abun- 


284 


Conclusion. 


dantlv  sufficient,  as  we  believe,  to  more  than  justify  all  our  com- 
plaints, and  to  convince  the  Board  of  Visitors,  and  all  other 
intelligent  and  unprejudiced  Christiau  men,  that  this  new-old 
theology  called  "Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  is  not  '  orthodox  and 
consistent  Calvinism,'  but  is  in  irrepressible  conflict  with  the 
theology  defined  in  the  Seminary  Creed  and  Statutes,  and  re- 
quired by  the  Founders  to  be  taught  on  the  Andover  Foundations. 

The  Answer  Given  to  the  Moral  Question. 

Therefore,  the  answer  to  the  moral  and  supreme  question  in 
this  case,  is,  we  submit,  obvious  and  inevitable.  The  moment  it 
is  decided,  that  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  is  antagonistic  to 
"  the  Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  the  Creed"  and  Statutes  of 
the  Founders,  it  is  also  decided  that  the  defendant,  in  holding 
and  teaching  "Progressive  Orthodoxy"  while  supported  by 
Andover  funds,  is  guilty  of  immoral  and  criminal  action.  He 
is  getting  possession  of  other  people's  property  by  unlawful 
methods,  and  using  that  property  in  the  service  of  his  own  inter- 
ests. As  surely  as  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy  "  is  not  the  Con- 
sistent Calvinism  of  the  Andover  Creed  and  Statutes,  but  is 
opposed  to  it,  so  surely  the  defendant  is  doing  morally  what 
James  Relly  did  when  he  got  possession  of  another  person's 
money  by  unlawful  methods  and  put  it  to  his  own  use  ;  for  doing 
which  he  was  tried  and  condemned  in  court,  and  on  account  of 
which,  and  because  of  other  "  scandalous  practices,"  his  fol- 
lowers forsook  him  and  left  him  to  die  in  disgrace.  As  surely 
as  the  defendant  and  his  progressive  associates  are  teaching  in 
Andover  Seminary,  under  cover  of  the  name,  "  Progressive 
Orthodox)^,"  a  theology  which  is  opposed  to  that  defined  in  the 
Creed  and  Statutes,  so  surely  they  are  doing  substantially  what 
John  Murray  did  when  he  obtained  support  and  endorsement 
from  orthodox  people,  and  the  free  use  of  orthodox  pulpits  and 
churches,  under  false  pretences,  by  making  the  impression  that 
he  was  an  orthodox  man,  and  was  preaching  the  evangelical 
faith,  when  in  fact  he  was  a  Rellyanist,  and  was  covertly,  little 
by  little,  as  his  orthodox  hearers  would  bear  it,  preaching  Rellyan 
Universalism.  The  Andover  progressives,  as  surely  as  our  de- 
cision of  the  theological  question  is  correct,  are  now  obtaining 
support  and  endorsement  from  orthodox  people,  and  the  free  use 


Conclusion. 


285 


of  a  richly  endowed  orthodox  Seminary,  of  its  honored  name,  its 
prestige  and  its  funds,  by  deceptive  methods,  by  claiming  that 
they  are  holding  and  teaching  a  theology  which  is  "new," 
and  is  properly  and  truthfully  called  "Progressive  Orthodoxy" 
when  in  fact,  it  is  not  new,  and  as  judged  by  the  standard  of 
the  Andover  Creed,  is  neither  orthodoxy  nor  progressive,  but  is 
heterodoxy  and  retrogressive.  The  truth  is,  unless  all  our  evi- 
dence and  arguments  are  at  fault,  these  same  self-styled  progress- 
ives are  moving,  as  fast  as  their  peculiar  circumstances  in  an 
orthodox  Seminary  will  permit,  backward  and  downward  towards 
the  old  pagan  Pantheism  of  Greece  and  India.  Consequently 
we  are  compelled  to  believe,  that  the  defendant,  in  teaching  in 
Andover  Seminary  what  we  claim  to  have  shown  to  be  Rellyan, 
or  Pantheistic,  Universalism,  is  guilty  of  morally  disreputable 
and  even  criminal  conduct. 

Expert  Opinion. 

Moreover,  according  to  expert  opinion  as  given  in  the  reli- 
gious press,  and  in  our  larger  periodicals,  The  Reviews  and  Quar- 
terlies, denominational  and  undenominational,  conservative  and 
liberal,  we  are  warranted  in  saying,  as  we  are  prepared  to  show 
by  citations,  that  the  almost  universal  verdict  of  trained  theo- 
logians of  all  schools  and  sects  upon  the  theological  question  in 
the  Andover  Case,  is,  that  the  "new  theology"  recently  intro- 
duced into  Andover  Seminary  is  in  irrepressible  conflict  with  that 
of  the  Seminary  Creed  and  Statutes.  Consequently  and  inevi- 
tably the  almost  universal  verdict  of  our  religious  papers,  evan- 
gelical and  liberal,  and  of  our  larger  periodicals,  so  far  as  they 
have  discussed  the  Andover  Case,  upon  the  great  moral  question 
at  issue  in  this  trial,  is,  that  to  teach  this  "  new  theology  "  on  the 
Andover  Foundations  cannot  be  justified  by  any  right  standard 
of  morals.  There  is  abundant  evidence,  also,  that  this  capturing 
of  an  orthodox  theological  Seminary,  and  then  using  it  for  the 
maintenance  and  inculcation  of  an  unorthodox  and  liberal  faith, 
is  a  type  of  dishonesty  which  is  peculiarly  odious. 

There  is  a  species  of  bird  that  never  builds  its  own  nest.  It  is 
called  the  "  cow  bird."  It  watches  some  other  birds  as  they 
laboriously  build  their  nest  and  begin  to  lay  in  it  their  eggs. 
Then  it  steals  into  their  cozy  nest,  or,  if  need  be,  fights  its  way 


286 


Conclusion. 


into  it,  and  there  lays  its  eggs  also,  and  thus  compels  the  owners 
of  the  nest  to  hatch  out  and  rear  a  brood  of  cow  birds.  It  is  a 
mean  bird  that  will  do  that.  There  is  a  species  or  class  of  reli- 
gionists, that  never  yet,  so  far  as  we  know,  has  built  its  own  the- 
ological seminary.  They  have  sometimes  been  called  Rellyanists. 
Some  men  of  this  faith  have  been  casting  covetous  eyes  upon  a 
richly  furnished  and  famous  Seminary  on  Andover  Hill.  This 
institution  was  built  and  endowed  by  orthodox  and  Consistent 
Calvin ists,  for  the  express  and  sole  purpose  of  sending  forth 
from  it  every  year  a  brood  of  Christian  young  men,  trained 
at  the  expense  of  the  Founders,  to  go  everywhere  in  the  wide 
world,  preaching  the  Christian  faith  as  denned  by  Consistent 
Calvinists.  But  these  modern  Rellyanists  are  now  capturing  this 
same  orthodox  and  richly  endowed  Seminary,  and  are  using  it 
for  the  purpose  of  sending  forth  from  it  every  year  a  brood  of 
young  men,  trained  at  the  expense  of  its  Calvinistic  Founders,  to 
preach  Rellyau  Universalisin  to  their  fellow-men, — a  faith  with 
which  the  Founders,  to  their  sorrow,  were  well  acquainted,  which 
they  abhorred,  and  which  by  statute  they  pledged  every  professor 
in  their  Seminary  to  the  end  of  time  not  to  teach,  but  to  oppose. 

Now  there  is  no  blinking  the  fact  that  the  universal  public 
conscience  declares,  that  that  is  not  an  honorable  thing  for  any 
class  of  men  to  do  ;  and  that  any  religious  faith  that  will  prompt, 
or  even  allow,  such  action  is  an  immoral  faith.  Can  any  man 
point  out,  in  all  history,  a  single  instance  in  Avhich  Calvinists  — 
Consistent  Calvinists,  or  any  other  kind  of  true  Calvinists  —  have 
thus  captured  a  seminary,  or  any  other  institution,  or  property, 
belonging  to  some  sect  or  school  of  a  liberal  faith,  and  then  used 
it  for  the  propagation  of  Calvinism?  Calvinists  have  not  been 
found  doing  such  things,  nor  have  they  been  found  counseling 
and  encouraging  one  another  to  do  such  things  as  a  shrewd  and 
easy  method  of  disseminating  their  Calvinistic  beliefs. 

The  New  York  Observer  (August  11,  1892),  in  an  editorial 
decidedly  pertinent  to  these  times,  and  in  particular  to  this  An- 
dover Case,  asks  the  following  questions,  and  practically  answers 
them  :  — 

What  Calvinist  ever  advised  Calvinists  publicly  to  ■subscribe  to  an  anti- 
Calvinistic  creed,  and  then  to  teach  and  defend  Calvinism  within  an  anti- 
Calvinistic  denomination?    What  Calvinist  ever  advised  Calvinists  to 


Conclusion. 


287 


hold  office  and  take  emoluments  on  anti-Calvimstic  foundations?  What 
orthodox  body  ever  put  to  its  own  use  endowments  that  were  given  to 
spread  "  progressive"  theology?  The  history  of  religious  endowments 
shows  without  an  exception,  if  we  are  not  mistaken,  that  it  is  the  looser 
creed  that  filches  from  the  stricter,  and  not  the  stricter  from  the  looser. 

These  questions  and  this  statement  of  The  Observer  not  only 
pay  a  just  tribute  of  praise  to  Calvinistic  honesty,  but  also  con- 
tain a  severe  indictment  against  the  morality  of  the  so-called 
Andover  Progressives.  But  this  citation  is  only  a  sample  of  the 
almost  universal  judgment,  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  of  the 
religious  press,  upon  the  great  moral  question  in  the  Andover 
Case.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  before  the  august  tribunal  of 
the  public  religious  conscience,  the  defendant,  for  teaching  what 
he  calls  "  Progressive  Orthodoxy"  on  the  Andover  Foundations, 
already  stands  adjudged  as  guilty  of  morally  disreputable  and 
criminal  conduct.  This  verdict  reinforces  the  conclusion  which 
the  complainants  have  reached  through  the  most  careful  examina- 
tion which  they  have  been  able  to  make  of  "  Progressive  Ortho- 
doxy "  itself,  as  compared  with  the  theology  defined  in  the 
Andover  Creed  and  Statutes,  and  as  set  forth  in  that  clearly 
described  and  well-known  system  of  Christian  Faith, which  Andover 
Seminary  was  founded  to  maintain  and  inculcate,  and  which  the 
Founders  called  "  Consistent  Calvinism." 

Final  Appeal  to  the  Board  of  Visitors. 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors :  Our 
responsibility  in  this  Andover  Case  has  terminated,  but  yours  has 
not.  The  momentous  question,  What  is  to  be  the  future  of  this 
great  Institution  of  sacred  learning,  is  now  to  be  decided  by  you. 

By  the  Statutes  under  which  you  act,  you  +xq  invested  with 
large  powers.  Your  authority  is  supreme  in  this  Seminary.  The 
Statutes  make  it  evident,  that  you  were  invested  with  such  extra- 
ordinary powers  and  authority,  for  the  very  purpose,  that  in  a 
great  emergency  like  the  present,  you  might  be  able  to  determine, 
in  the  face  of  all  opposition,  that  the  theological  instruction  in 
this  Seminary  shall  not  be  opposed  to  "the  Christian  faith  as 
expressed  in  the  Creed  "  to  which  every  professor  has  subscribed, 
but  shall  be  in  full  and  hearty  accord  with  "  the  true  intention" 
of  the  Founders  as  declared  in  their  Constitution  and  Statutes. 


288 


Conclusion. 


By  appointment  from  the  Founders  themselves,  you  three 
gentlemen  stand  as  in  their  "  place  and  stead,  the  Guardians, 
Overseers  and  Protectors"  of  their  Foundation.  Standing  thus 
in  the  place  of  the  Founders,  you  are  required  to  "  see  "  that  this 
sacred  Trust  is  executed  by  all  persons  who  have  any  respon- 
sibility in  its  execution,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  purposes  for 
which  the  Seminary  was  established  and  endowed.  You  are  also 
required  to  "  effectually  guard  the  same  "  sacred  Trust  "  against 
all  perversion,  or  the  smallest  avoidance  of  the  true  design"  of 
the  Founders. 

It  is  likewise  made  your  imperative  duty  "  to  determine,  inter- 
pret, and  explain  the  Statutes  of  the  said  Foundation  in  all  cases 
brought  before  "you  in  your  "judicial  capacity."  This  critical 
and  decisive  work  of  interpreting  the  Statutes  was  not  intrusted 
to  the  Faculty.  It  was  not  committed  to  the  Board  of  Trustees. 
To  you,  the  Board  of  Visitors,  and  to  you  alone,  is  intrusted  the 
high  power  of  determining,  interpreting,  and  explaining  the 
Statutes  of  the  Seminary.  To-day,  you,  and  you  only,  are  in- 
vested with  the  power  to  give  a  legal  and  authoritative  interpre- 
tation of  the  principal  Statute  which  we  have  brought  before 
you,  namely,  that  which  embodies  "the  Creed  and  Declaration." 
You  are  now  called  upon  to  "interpret  and  explain"  in  your 
"judicial  capacity,"  this  Statute  in  its  relation  to  the  "new  the- 
ology," so  called,  which  has  recently  been  introduced  into  the 
Seminary,  and  is  now  taught  in  the  place  of  the  theology  of  the 
Seminary  Creed.  The  facts  in  the  case  have  been  presented. 
The  Andover  theology  —  the  only  theology  that  can  ever  truth- 
fully be  called  the  Andover  theology  —  that  whicli  is  defined  in 
Article  II  of  the  Statutes  of  the  Associate  Foundation,  is  before 
you.  Another  theology  also,  named  recently  by  its  pretended 
discoverers  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  is  before  you.  Can  this 
"new  theology  "of  the  defendant  and  of  his  progressive  asso- 
ciates rightfully  usurp  the  place  of  the  Consistent  Calvinism  of 
the  Founders?  Can  "Progressive  Orthodoxy,"  which  has  been 
boastfully  set  forth  as  "The  Theology  of  To-day,"  but  which  is 
not  necessarily  The  Theology  of  To-morrow,  be  lawfully  and 
righteously  taught  in  Andover  Seminary,  in  the  place  of  the  the- 
ology of  that  Creed,  concerning  which  the  Associate  Founders 
declare  in  Statute  XXVII,  that  "  every  article  "  of  it  "  shall  for- 


Conclusion. 


289 


ever  remain  entirely  and  identically  the  same,  without  the  least 
alteration,  addition  or  diminution"?  These  are  the  questions 
which  we  place  before  you.  The  responsibility  of  answering 
them  rests  upon  you. 

But,  permit  us  to  add,  Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Visitors, 
that,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  you  have  here  and  now  an  oppor- 
tunity, such  as  has  rarely  been  given  to  men  on  this  earth,  to 
serve  in  the  largest  way  some  of  the  dearest,  grandest  interests 
of  countless  individual  souls,  of  the  Church  universal,  and  of  the 
world  itself.  This  Seminary  was  founded  to  reach  round  the 
globe  with  its  evangelistic,  redeeming,  and  glorifying  power,  and 
then  onward  through  all  the  ages  until  Christ  shall  come  again. 

It  is  your  high  and  blessed  privilege  to  be,  under  God,  the 
supreme  guardians  of  this  head  fountain  of  a  world-wide  re- 
demption ;  to  stand  where  you  can  be  true  to  those  large-hearted 
and  God-fearing  men,  the  Founders,  according  to  your  solemn 
promise  ;  true  to  their  sacred  and  sublime  purposes ;  and  at  the 
same  time  true  on  the  largest  scale  to  God's  kingdom  of  truth 
and  righteousness.  For  yours  is  the  rare,  angelic  mission  to  per- 
petuate this  evangelical  Theological  Seminary  as  a  great  foun- 
tain of  gospel  light  and  salvation,  by  declaring,  with  all  the 
authority  of  your  high  office,  that  there  shall  be  no  more  trifling 
in  these  holy  places  with  sacred  obligations  ;  that  no  professor  on 
these  foundations  shall  promise  to  teach  one  theology,  and  then 
teach  another,  which  is  opposed  to  the  one  he  has  promised  to 
teach  ;  but  that  in  the  heart  and  mind,  in  the  life  and  teaching  of 
every  professor  who  shall  remain  one  day  in  office,  there  must 
be  that  living,  energizing,  evangelical,  orthodox,  and  Calvinistic 
faith,  which  the  Founders  in  their  Statutes  declared  to  be  lTJie 
Christian  faith  as  expressed  in  their  Creed ' ;  which  faitli  is  no 
new  discovery  of  yesterday  or  of  the  day  before  ;  which  is  not 
merely  an  experiment  of  to-day,  and  may  be  thrown  aside  to- 
morrow ;  which  is  not  either  the  old  pagan  wisdom  of  ancient 
Greeks  just  rediscovered,  and  now  paraded  before  the  public  as 
the  newest,  most  advanced,  and  most  "progressive  orthodoxy"; 
but  which  faith  is  in  truth  "77te  Christian  Faith,"  that  for  nearly 
nineteen  centuries  has  been  "  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom 
of  God"  "unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth "  ;  which 
going  forth  from  this  one  Seminary  into  all  the  world  during  now 


290 


Conclusion. 


the  larger  part  of  a  century,  has  brought  uncounted  multitudes 
into  the  eternal  service  of  Christ ;  and  which,  if  permitted  by  one 
word  and  one  act  of  yours  to  do  so,  will  yet  bring  millions  more 
into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Thus,  through  your  fidelity  to  a  great 
and  holy  Trust,  this  Seminary,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  grand 
purpose  of  the  Founders,  shall  do  its  honorable  part  in  the  sublime 
and  beatific  work  of  fulfilling  the  last  great  command  of  our 
ascending  Lord  :  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the 
nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to  observe  all 

THINGS  WHATSOEVER  I  COMMANDED  YOU." 


J 


